RED SOX BROTHERS....THEO GONE? WTF?

[dbdynsty25]

Exactly! And where has Atlanta's pitching gotten them in the postseason? How many titles did the Smoltz-Maddox-Glavine juggernaut bring them?

Rob's entire statement was pretty ridiculous actually. They win 95 a year because they have 200 mil invested in the team. And you bring up the Dodgers, Cubs and Mets, but do any of them come close to 200 mil? Didn't think so. The Braves get there every year under 100 mil (and this year around 80)...that's a hellova lot more impressive than getting there with 200 mil invested. Only Yankee fans would think otherwise.

[bdunn13]

The Yankees spend more than the Cubs and Mets combined...To say the Yankees don't win b/c of money is laughable.

They try to buy championships instead of actualy building a team.

[dbdynsty25]

The Yankees spend more than the Cubs and Mets combined...To say the Yankees don't win b/c of money is laughable.

Like I said...only Yankee fans don't see it that way.

[tsunami]

To say that money is the only thing that matters is laughable. If that were the case then the top teams each year would follow in order of payroll...and they obviously do not.

Only Yankee haters would not see that.

[dbdynsty25]

To say that money is the only thing that matters is laughable. If that were the case then the top teams each year would follow in order of payroll...and they obviously do not.

When was the last time a team with one of the top 5 payrolls finished in last place with the worst record in the league? If it HAS happened, it's been once or twice. When was the last time a team with a bottom 5 payroll won the World Series. Same thing...once or twice at the most.

Seems to me that's a f*cking damn good indication of the success that money brings.

[tsunami]

To say that money is the only thing that matters is laughable. If that were the case then the top teams each year would follow in order of payroll...and they obviously do not.

When was the last time a team with one of the top 5 payrolls finished in last place with the worst record in the league? If it HAS happened, it's been once or twice. When was the last time a team with a bottom 5 payroll won the World Series. Same thing...once or twice at the most.

Seems to me that's a f*cking damn good indication of the success that money brings.

So, money must be the reason the Braves have won 14 straight division titles? They spent an average of $31 million more than the Nationals and Marlins this year. I don't know why the Marlins and Nationals even bother playing. But wait, the Mets and Phillies spent more than the Braves and didn't win the division? How could that happen?!?!? And the Marlins have 2 WS titles to the Braves 1.

Last time I checked the Braves were spending more than 2/3 of the league (5th highest in the NL) but I didn't see you claiming they bought their division titles.

Sure, money helps. No one is questioning that. But money is not the only factor as some people want to insinuate. And money is not only helping the Yankees as some people want to insinuate.

The Yankees had one of the highest payrolls in the early and mid 90's and they weren't winning squat. So, did their money get smarter? Did the money make better decisions?

Botton line is money DOES NOT win championships. If it did, the Yankees would be World Series champs every year. But it does not.

[bdunn13]

Here is a nice page that adjuts team salary with average league salary ect and calculates how well a team has done based on how much they spend.

http://www.mattsly.com/mlb/

[RobVarak]

Rob's entire statemennt was pretty ridiculous actually. They win 95 a year because they have 200 mil invested in the team. And you bring up the Dodgers, Cubs and Mets, but do any of them come close to 200 mil? Didn't think so. The Braves get there every year under 100 mil (and this year around 80)...that's a hellova lot more impressive than getting there with 200 mil invested. Only Yankee fans would think otherwise.

First of all, I'm no Yankee fan.

Secondly, despite being 1st in payroll nearly every year, the Yankees almost always still get more wins per dollar than poorly run teams like the Mets and Dodgers. Just pointing out the raw dollars spent doesn't paint an accurate picture. I agree, as do the numbers, that the Braves do a more efficient job, although they keep most of their homegrown talent, which improves their $/win numbers.

Finally, if I could have a statement repeated ad infinitum from October 1 through October 30th it would be this:

Baseball post-seasons are a crap shoot!!

You can ascribe all of bullshit character explanations about "clutch" and "gutty" etc, but the fact is that teams buit to succeed over a 162 game season which yields such a narrow difference in competitive strength playing in a sequence of short series will yield results that are almost completely untethered from their regular season performance.

This is not a revolutionary idea, and there is no shortage of scholarship at SABR and in the popular media that supports this fact. As sports fans we all like to attribute characteristics to champions that we feel define the athletic ideal. But the reality is that MLB's method of choosing a champion is to put them through a very good test of quality for 5 months and then play musical chairs for a month. I'm not saying that there's a realistically better way to do it, but sports fans would all be better served by acknowledging this reality. Of course this would leave TV commentators without 90% of their material, but that's probably for the best as well.

Here's a recent article about the post-season crap shoot. I'm not sure if it's a premium article or not. If so, I'd be happy to c/p it to someone interested.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/artic ... cleid=4517

[dbdynsty25]

There is no one who believes that the post season is a crap shoot more than me...especially in baseball. Most of the other sports usually play out how they are supposed to. Baseball on the other hand does not.

[tsunami]

First of all, I'm no Yankee fan.

Secondly, despite being 1st in payroll nearly every year, the Yankees almost always still get more wins per dollar than poorly run teams like the Mets and Dodgers. Just pointing out the raw dollars spent doesn't paint an accurate picture. I agree, as do the numbers, that the Braves do a more efficient job, although they keep most of their homegrown talent, which improves their $/win numbers.

Finally, if I could have a statement repeated ad infinitum from October 1 through October 30th it would be this:

Baseball post-seasons are a crap shoot!!

You can ascribe all of bullshit character explanations about "clutch" and "gutty" etc, but the fact is that teams buit to succeed over a 162 game season which yields such a narrow difference in competitive strength playing in a sequence of short series will yield results that are almost completely untethered from their regular season performance.

This is not a revolutionary idea, and there is no shortage of scholarship at SABR and in the popular media that supports this fact. As sports fans we all like to attribute characteristics to champions that we feel define the athletic ideal. But the reality is that MLB's method of choosing a champion is to put them through a very good test of quality for 5 months and then play musical chairs for a month. I'm not saying that there's a realistically better way to do it, but sports fans would all be better served by acknowledging this reality. Of course this would leave TV commentators without 90% of their material, but that's probably for the best as well.

Here's a recent article about the post-season crap shoot. I'm not sure if it's a premium article or not. If so, I'd be happy to c/p it to someone interested.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/artic ... cleid=4517

Excellent post. But I think its easier for people to say the Yankees are evil, they spend too much money, and they suck since they don't win the World Series every year.

If the Yankees win, they bought it. If they lose, they wasted their money. Everyone wants it both ways.

[dbdynsty25]

If the Yankees win, they bought it. If they lose, they wasted their money.

What's really funny is that you're EXACTLY correct in that statement.

[tsunami]

There is no one who believes that the post season is a crap shoot more than me...especially in baseball. Most of the other sports usually play out how they are supposed to. Baseball on the other hand does not.

Then why do the Yankees suck because they haven't fielded a championship team in the last 5 years? They got to the playoffs. That's the goal. What happens afterwards is up in the air.

[tsunami]

If the Yankees win, they bought it. If they lose, they wasted their money.

What's really funny is that you're EXACTLY correct in that statement.

It's not funny that you actually believe that. It's actually sad.


So, essentially, unless the two teams playing for the World Series each year spent the exact same amount, if Team A spent more than Team B and won then they bought it.

Or does that only apply to the Yankees?

[dbdynsty25]

So, money must be the reason the Braves have won 14 straight division titles? They spent an average of $31 million more than the Nationals and Marlins this year. I don't know why the Marlins and Nationals even bother playing. But wait, the Mets and Phillies spent more than the Braves and didn't win the division? How could that happen?!?!? And the Marlins have 2 WS titles to the Braves 1.

Money is certainly a factor in the Braves winning their 14 straight. They are consistently in the top 1/4 of the league and that's not the issue. The issue is that the Braves win with their homegrown talent and it reduces the overall cost when it comes to resigning those players.

And the fact that the Marlins have 2 WS titles means little in this discussion because if you remember correctly, the next offseason they had to unload all of their high priced players because they couldn't afford them anymore. Why is that?

When teams spend more and finish below the Braves, that's a testament to Schuerholz because he puts together teams that will play well together. And obviously Bobby Cox and Leo Mazzone had a big part in that as well. That's not exactly a knock on the other teams that spend more...it just means they were out managed and out gm'd.

Plus, I never said that the highest payroll teams win it every year...nor did I said that the higher the payroll...the more victories it means. I simply said that the lowest payroll teams have NEVER or RARELY won a world series, whereas the highest payroll teams consistently win. You guys like to twist words around to make them mean something they don't. Read my statement about the top 5 and bottom 5 again, do a little research and then get back to me.

[dbdynsty25]

If the Yankees win, they bought it. If they lose, they wasted their money.

What's really funny is that you're EXACTLY correct in that statement.

It's not funny that you actually believe that. It's actually sad.


So, essentially, unless the two teams playing for the World Series each year spent the exact same amount, if Team A spent more than Team B and won then they bought it.

Or does that only apply to the Yankees?

The Yankees spent OVER 200 Million in a year on payrolls and didn't even make it to the World Series. As a Yankee fan, aren't you disappointed? Wouldn't you be happier if they fielded a more complete team, with less money, and won it all?

[spooky157]

The Yankees spent OVER 200 Million in a year on payrolls and didn't even make it to the World Series. As a Yankee fan, aren't you disappointed? Wouldn't you be happier if they fielded a more complete team, with less money, and won it all?

I'll answer that - as a Yankee fan, I have to say that I hate the way this team is constructed. All hired guns, free agents, etc. When the Yanks were in the midst of their run from 1996-2001 the key players were almost all homegrown talent. Fans really latched onto that team. I can tell you that it's still fun to go to Yankee games but the attachment to the players just isn't the same. The fans cheer more for guys like Wang, Smalls, Chacon than Alex Rodriguez, Sheffield, Randy Johnson and those guys.

But I don't really care how much they spend on payroll. I'm happy that the organization is strong enough to be able to spend that much money (and some of those lower payroll teams must be happy to pocket some of that luxury tax money too) but why wouldn't fans want their teams to spend more money?

[tsunami]

Money is certainly a factor in the Braves winning their 14 straight. They are consistently in the top 1/4 of the league and that's not the issue. The issue is that the Braves win with their homegrown talent and it reduces the overall cost when it comes to resigning those players.

And the fact that the Marlins have 2 WS titles means little in this discussion because if you remember correctly, the next offseason they had to unload all of their high priced players because they couldn't afford them anymore. Why is that?

When teams spend more and finish below the Braves, that's a testament to Schuerholz because he puts together teams that will play well together. And obviously Bobby Cox and Leo Mazzone had a big part in that as well. That's not exactly a knock on the other teams that spend more...it just means they were out managed and out gm'd.

Plus, I never said that the highest payroll teams win it every year...nor did I said that the higher the payroll...the more victories it means. I simply said that the lowest payroll teams have NEVER or RARELY won a world series, whereas the highest payroll teams consistently win. You guys like to twist words around to make them mean something they don't. Read my statement about the top 5 and bottom 5 again, do a little research and then get back to me.

Twisting works around? I haven't twisted anyone's words. I have responded to you based on your comments.

Your argument was based on the your belief that Cashman is not a good GM and the Yankees only win because of money. I argued that premise with you using the Braves as an example. Your statement about top 5 and bottom 5 payroll teams winning the World Series is not really relevant to the argument. Your statement that money helps with success is certainly valid, and I have never argued that the Yankees don't benefit from that. But, I counter that with the fact that some teams are spending considerably more money (including your Braves) than most teams as well. But, it seems the Yankees are the only ones held to the standard of "buying" championships, as if everyone else in the league is spending the same amount.

You are also throwing out slightly contradictory statements where you agree that the post season is a crap shoot, but then you also view post season success as a very important part of a GMs qualifications, and dismiss the Yankees (and Cashman) as failures since they haven't fielded a championship team in 5 years with all the money they spent. If the postseason is a crap shoot, as you agreed, how can Cashman and the Yankees be viewed as failures if they have limited control over the ultimate destiny of the playoffs?

Again, I am not saying the Yankees don't have an advantage over other teams because of their payroll. To say so would be blindly idiotic. But, I AM saying that money isn't the be all and end all of success. Money does not buy championships. That's it.

[RobVarak]

There are two overlapping discussionshere.

1. Is Cashman a good GM? Certainly fair to take payroll into account when evaluating him, I think. As stated above, I think he grades out as at least better than average.

2. Should the Yanks expect to win or at least be in the WS every year based on the delta between their payroll and the league median? I think not, because of the nature of baseball's post-season. I DO think however, that they should be expected to consistently challenge for the post-season, and by and large they have.

The bigger question that interests me is the anti-spending attitudes of baseball fans.

Many small market fans just moan and groan in chorus with their ownership because they can't spend over $100m. But they don't pressure their own teams to get off the revenue-sharing gravy train and actually spend money on payroll (KC, Pitts etc.). Their ire is totally mis-directed.

OTOH, many of us root for corporately-owned teams or teams owned by other deep-pocket entities. As a Cub fan, I don't expect the Tribune to spend dollar for dollar with Steinbrenner (although they could), but I absolutely demand they spend wisely and not rely on penury as an excuse when passing on a FA. But many Mets, Dodgers & Cub fans still vent their spleens at George & Co. rather than asking why their clubs aren't spending wiser or settling for a below-market player with below-market production.

A lot of this is an outgrowth of Steinbrenner's megalomania, certainly. But it's also a product of the quixotic Seligean crusade for a salary restraint, and the public is playing the patsy. Rather than urging small market teams to invest more in payroll and grow revenue, Selig lets them keep taking welfare payments while inching towards a salary cap. And, coincidence of coincidences, Selig IS a small market owner. Wow, who woulda thunk it?

[tsunami]

The Yankees spent OVER 200 Million in a year on payrolls and didn't even make it to the World Series. As a Yankee fan, aren't you disappointed? Wouldn't you be happier if they fielded a more complete team, with less money, and won it all?

As a Yankee fan, I am disappointed they didn't win the World Series. As every fan of every other team besides the White Sox is. But, why would I be happier if they spent less money? And why would that make the championship better? If that was the case, then the 96 championship team would the better than the 98,99,00 teams. It doesn't make sense.

As a fan, I don't care how much they spend. I might care how little they spend, like some other teams. if they only got marginal talent and didn't even try to field a decent team. I care who they bring in and how those players perform. I don't really care that they paid Kevin Brown $15 million...I cared that he sucked for most of his time in pinstripes. If he cost $5 instead, it wouldn't make me like him more or appreciate his performance more. Granted, if a player is commanding that type of salary, you would expect a better performance...but that is not that deciding factor in if I will root for or against him.

[dbdynsty25]

You are also throwing out slightly contradictory statements where you agree that the post season is a crap shoot, but then you also view post season success as a very important part of a GMs qualifications, and dismiss the Yankees (and Cashman) as failures since they haven't fielded a championship team in 5 years with all the money they spent.

It's not contradictory at all and here's why. Lets take the Marlins in 97 for example. They made it to the World Series as the Wild Card team. The Braves won the division and lost to them in the playoffs. Now...the Marlins had quite a few names on that team that promptly left the team RIGHT after the season ended (Renteria, Sheffield, Kevin Brown, etc.). Why did that happen? It happened because they were all going to be making too much money the next year, or they were offered bigger contracts elsewhere. Had the Marlins been able to hang on to them at the same price, they would have been just as good, if not better, the next year. But since they were considered a small market team...they couldn't.

The crapshoot is that they were financially responsible enough to win the World Series...the crap part is that they couldn't sustain it because of payroll limitations. The Yankees have never had payroll limitations so they never have to worry about losing their higher priced guys the next year when the win a championship. The same thing happened with the Diamondbacks when they won their World Series. They had to gut the team the next year since they didn't have enough payroll flexibility.

[Dave]

The crapshoot is that they were financially responsible enough to win the World Series...the crap part is that they couldn't sustain it because of payroll limitations. The Yankees have never had payroll limitations so they never have to worry about losing their higher priced guys the next year when the win a championship. The same thing happened with the Diamondbacks when they won their World Series. They had to gut the team the next year since they didn't have enough payroll flexibility.

Although I think you're giving the D-Backs and Marlins the benefit of doubt on fiscal responsibility, you hit on the thing that drives me crazy about the Yankees and the credit they get for developing players. Look at the A's, they developed Chavez, Giambi, Tejada, Hudson, Zito, and Mulder. All would still be in Oakland if they had the Yankees payroll (plus a few other players to fill in any holes).

The Yanks should make the playoffs every year if they are spending $50MM more than anyone else. Winning it all is a crapshoot though, so I don't hold Cashman liable. He probably has the most stressful GM job in MLB, but I can't rate him as one of the best due to the complete sell-out of their farm system for established performers.

[dbdynsty25]

Yeah Dave, I'm definitely giving them the benefit of the doubt because I don't know all of the financing issues that those teams go through. I don't know sh*t about ballpark costs, leasing, suites, etc...and I'm sure those have a huge effect on money coming and going from a particular teams. The Marlins are in by far the worst ballpark situation so I am giving them a little bit of credit. The Dbacks on the other hand had a brand new ballpark and they pretty much bought their championship...since they basically had to disassemble their team the next year because they were in the red so bad.