Save us Cliff Lee, you're our only hope.

Agree that Lee gives them the best chance to win tonight.

Gonna switch back & forth between this and the Falcons/Saints game - good times

Ummm, let's wait until AFTER the first pitch before we talk the smack, eh?

hey we have a win in this series, and at worst, we will make it interesting.  The phils still have some life in them.  Not saying they will necessarily win (although i hope so) but they will make it very interesting.  Game 7 possiblity,

Anyway the Yankees play with money and roids.  ASTERISK THEM ASTERISK ASTERISK ASTERISK! Thats right I went there.

 I have to agree on the bandwagon fans I did not know there were any Philly fans on this site until the series started.

LETS GO PHILLIES. Cliff Lee is a beast on the mound.

Heard a funny joke the other day... you know what a yankee's hat and a hemorrhoid have in common? Eventually every a-hole gets one.

OUCH 

Utley again OUT OF HERE

God bless you, Chase Utley.

Its not over until Vindog sings. Go PHILLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dont know but I took a crap in a Yankee hat last night

Notice how there is no Yankee fans with any faith that they can beat Cliff Lee. Thix is not over yet! I believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yankees blew their loaddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

Can Lee go on two days rest?  lol

Wow - nice catch by Gardner!

I gotta remember that joke. Good one.

Of course... The Yankees are the Patriots of baseball

just how many HR's does Utley have in this WS anyway?

Utley MVP out of here AGAIN

Well....here's one Phillies fan that has been around for awhile. 

Never mind, it's one more than it was before I asked the question, and he still has time for another, so I'll wait on that stat....

You know you're having a lousy series when the best thing Joe Buck can say about you is that you had your best cut of the series on a foul ball.

Of course, he can talk at length about the wide variety of food at the ball park.  Geez - don't they feed this guy at other stadiums?

Except they're worse, because the Patriots don't have a salary cap that's twice as high as everyone else.

Ryan Howard has produced more wind this week than Rush Limbaugh.......

Here's hoping that the Phils can win this game so that Howard will have a chance for redemption in NY.

Would have been nice if Ibanez could have saved that one for Wednesday.....

even if NY loses tonight,they will take it to the top next game. the phillies stink. atleast NY fans don't act so disrespectful of other fans,like Philly fans

That's not possible, Limbaugh is still a bigger windbag.

The Phillies obviously don't stink if they're playing in the World Series.  They didn't make it here by accident...and Yankee fans just act like their you know what doesn't stink.

Your the one that just chimed in and down graded the other team. Practice what you preach.

5 and counting. move over reggie jackass

Umm, Charlie, it might've been nice to tell Shane you were taking him out before he went out there and felt like an idiot.

All of a sudden it's a three run game.  ugh.....

The Phillies could sure use an insurance run here to avoid a save situation for Lidge.

Scratch that, looks like they're going with Madsen to close it out.

BIG double play there.....

Finish it off here!

Johnny Damon has been unreal the past couple of nights.....

Good game Phillies keep the momentum going in New York.

As they just said, "Back tot he Bronx" Thank you Cliff Lee and Chase Utley.

In defense of Jeter, it was the most clutch ground into double play OF ALL TIME!!

Thats true Pat but somehow Belechik has managed to turn the entire country against them despite the money issue. People hate the Patriots because of Belechik now like people used to hate the Cowboys for their arrogant AMERICA"S TEAM claim. I dont think that sentiment will change til Belechik moves on. I know you love the Pats and could care less, but I travel all over the country and I run into people evrywhere that say the PATS are the team they hate the most. By far they are the most hated team.... comparable to the Yanks in my opinion.......BUT,  I do run into alot of people around the country that like the Yankees, can't say that about the PATS.

Bite me, Gary ... I was on THAT bandwagon since the early 90s when they sucked!  Y'all can kiss our 27th Championship! 

PS - Yankees only good because of their money?  Really?!  I mean, no home-grown talent or anything .... Jeter, Posada, Cano, Pettitte, Rivera, .....   
Meanwhile, Phillies paid good money for Cliff Lee ... you know, the only player on their team that even makes the series interesting.

LOL... Theres NO crying in baseball my dear!      ^&%#$^%  Yankees

P.S.   Uttley aint havin to bad a series kiddo.

"Not bad"  is boooooooringgggggg! 

We'll see who's crying after game 6.  And since we're buddies, I'll be that shoulder you can cry on afterward(just don't go wiping your nasty snot on my Yankee jersey, got it?  lol).

I hate to break it to ya, Janet, but if the Yankees hadn't gone out and bought the players they did last offseason, they wouldn't have made it this far, so yes, they ARE this good because of the money.  Jeter is not the best player on his team, but he's had a solid career, the jury is still out on Cano IMHO, Posada was one of the worst defensive catchers in the league this year, only threw out 22% of base runners.  Chase Utley also hit 5 homers so far, and 3 of them came off that big guy named Sabathia.  Oh and Teixiera is currently pulling an A-Rod and stinking it up in the WS so far.

Oh c'mon Kramer ... have you SEEN the stats for the home-grown players I named?  Jury still out on Cano?  Steady fielding, hard-throwing, over-.300-batting Cano?  Mariano STILL consistently one of the best (arguably THE best) closer in baseball?  Posada may have lost a lot defensively over the years, but he's still a huge offensive threat, even after all these years. 
And as for the Phillies, seriously.  The only 2 players making any significant waves in this series are Chase Utley (I'll give you that) and Lee (NOT from the Phillies farm-system, which is my original point). 

The Yankees wouldn't be in the position they are right now had they not gone out and bought Burnett, Sabathia, and Teixiera like the spending-happy team everyone has come to know and loathe.  They had all those home-grown guys last year too and didn't even make the playoffs, that should give you proof that they once again went out and tried to buy a championship.  They are the biggest reason baseball needs a salary cap.

I could make the same argument about ANY team in baseball (perhaps without Cliff Lee and other non-home-grown players, the Phillies might not have gotten as far, either).  You can't attribute a team's success to any one person ... same rule goes for ALL teams, not just the underdog. 
I think it's a little ridiculous that other teams that make just as much money as the Yankees organization are complaining about needing a salary cap.  Just because the Yankees organization actually uses its profits on acquiring new talent (instead of raising the salaries/bonuses for their behind-the-scenes staff), everyone gets so upset.  But that's a whole different argument, altogether! 

Traded players are not even remotely comparable to free agents. Just so you know.

And no, it's not ridiculous at all. The Yankees payroll is so exorbitantly high, that it necessitates the discussion. If they even attempted to operate even similarly to other teams, it wouldn't be an issue. They could still make money hand over fist, and would still be successful, if they made solid personnel decisions.

However, they make terrible personnel decisions, but keep winning anyway, because they have enough money to spend their way past the mistakes. Other teams, if they signed terrible contracts like Carl Pavano, Kevin Brown, Jason Giambi, Jorge Posada, etc would be crippled. But the Yankees just shake them off and sign more players, for even more money. That's what bothers people.

ought ohhh Janet. Now you've got Pat involved and hot on your tail. May the force be with you my dear!

ohhh btw...... Pat is 100% Correct.

Name me another team that makes as much money as the Yankees and buys championships like they do, there isn't one.

There are other teams that COULD have comparable funds available (Pat's beloved Red Sox come to mind) if they managed their money better.  Yes, the Yankees do make the most money in revenue, but not nearly as much as many people like to think.  In 2007, for example, the Yanks brought in $302 million in revenue.  The Red Sox brought in $234 million, the Mets brought in $217 million, and the Dodgers came in with $211 million. 

Now, the argument is that the Yanks spend double on payroll than any other team.  Well, they aren't MAKING double the money in revenue.  NY just invests more of their earnings in the players (you're welcome to the fans who expect great ballplayers for their buck).  Perhaps fans of other teams should be less angry at the Yanks for doing it and more angry at their own teams for NOT spending their money wisely (you know, on the players that help teams WIN).

This Yankee fan agrees but please lets leave Posada out of that.  Hip Hip Jorge!!!!!!  I agree with all the other names you have on there and there could be many others added to that list.  And it does not bother me.  Baseball needs to cap if they want that to stop...and just remember that the Yankees were dominant before they had outrageous payroll.  Actually...the more they payroll went up, it seems they had great seasons but bombed out in the the biggest part of the year. 

 

Janet, don't let the haters get to you.  You have good points too and the Yankees do RULE!!!!! Even if they have a lot of haters.  As you said to Gary..now lets share with everyone that wants to rip us, make personal attacks, and just hate on our Yankees.  BITE ME!!!!!!  All of you.  I say this with all the love I can muster up. 

Thanks Bob, but don't worry, I don't let it get to me.  It's all good-spirited trash talking!   

In the end, the Yanks will be world champions again.  27 times.  You all hear that?  27.  TWENTY-SEVEN.  The big 2-7.  26?  No.  28?  Not yet.  No, no ... 27. 

Goooooo Yankees! 

Can I quote you on that when I IM you on Thursday nite and give you the business?

If the Phillies win the next two games, you can expect this post to be used against repeatedly and whenever I please.

The other teams don't HAVE the money the Yankees do, and spending like there's no tomorrow isn't spending wisely, it's being greedy.  Anyone who isn't a Yankee fan can clearly see that.

What's so unwise about it?  They're producing great, winning teams chock full of big star players that draw record crowds, leading to huge revenue, and more championships than any other team in baseball.  I don't see the drawback here ... except for the other teams that are being more .... frugal? 

Mike, if the Frillies win the next two games, you can print out 100 copies of this post, mail them to me, and I will eat them with a little bit of mustard and a whole big helping of humble pie!  lol  What do I get if I win (other than bragging rights and championship #27)?

And Gary ... I don't want you giving me any of your "business", thank you very much.   

If you can't see how what they do is nothing but be a bunch of greedy SOBs, I have nothing left to say.  I know baseball needs a salary cap, Yankee fans are the only people who don't have a problem with the crap the Steinbrenners pull on a yearly basis.  Oh, they didn't win the WS in 9 years, BOO HOO!  I suppose you're going to tell me the Pirates have had 17 losing seasons in a row because they don't spend as much as the Yankees do even though they could.  While it's true they have had bad management, everyone knows the Pirates can't afford to spend like the Yankees, and will NEVER be able to.  Small market teams will stay small market teams, and there will NEVER be any sort of decent competition until a salary cap is put in place, but that would limit the Yankees, they wouldn't be able to spend like money-hungry fiends every year.  However, by them not being able to do it, the entire MLB would be much better off.

If the Yankees win, I'll change my avatar to a Yankees logo for a week. I'll be completely shamed.

Ummm, a week?  Dude, I have to eat 100+ pieces of paper and give you the right to shove this poll in my face at any point in time ... forever.  You'll have to suck up that avatar for at least 6 months!  And write an article about how great the Yankees are (and why there should be NO salary cap in MLB ... just to tick Kramer off a little ... I don't think he's taking this poll seriously enough  ).  What say you? 

Well, I respectfully beg to differ.    Team payroll is a factor that does not seem to play too much into the success of the team.
Yes, the Yankees have the highest payroll in the majors, by a good amount.  But check out where the other playoff teams are on the list. 
Minnesota - 23rd
LA Angels - 6th
LA Dodgers - 11th
Red Sox - 4th
Colorado - 21st
Phillies - 8th
St. Louis - 13th

And you can't tell me that your Pirates can't scrape together more than $25 million for payroll in a year.  Blatant mis-management of funds and/or greed on the part of a team(s) should not mean that others should have to suffer.  As a Pirates fan, you should be outraged at your team's disrespectful way of being too greedy to give fans what they deserve (the best team they can possibly put together).

Hey Janet, as much I believe you are very informed and correct on so many other topics, most of these gentleman, and Pat (yes even Pat) are correct.  Do some research on the cable revenue Georgie makes.  There is more that can be made than just from baseball revenue, tickets, consessions, etc.

Their over-spending and making it more of a business and who can spend more to create a better team than a sport, who can, on an even playing field, put together a good team and compete at the sport is exactly why I hate the Yankees.  It is also the reason they need a salary cap and need one badly.

A-Rod, Textiera (who cares who to spell it), CC, AJ, Matsui, Damon, the list goes on....quite the list of players the Yankees bought to create a "team". It's like playing fantasy baseball but having more $$ to spend than everyone else.

The issue, for the other folks, the reason why Yankee fans don't see it as a problem is because of the history and what's happened.  There is not another set of fans that acts more entitled in sports. 

Stop. You can not possibly use the "if they managed their money better" argument. The Yankees manage their money worse than any other team in the league. That's a fact. As you pointed out, the Red Sox brought in $70M less in revenue. And they spent about $86M less in payroll. Assuming your figures are accurate, then percentage wise, the Red Sox actually spent a higher % of their revenue on payroll than the Yankees did. Same with the Mets.

You were saying?

I think you're underestimating how painful it would be for me to have to put anything Yankees related as my avatar.  I'd be emotionally scarred.  Plus I'm a Brewers fan, I could never write an article about not needing a salary cap in baseball.  I could maybe extend the avatar prop bet to two weeks.  You're already sitting in a pretty favorable position with that whole 3-2 lead.

Ah yes, 23rd, no wonder the Twins were able to win at least ONE freaking game and make the first round at least interesting........ Thanks for proving the point of why a salary cap is needed and badly.  They work very hard with a couple of stars and a bunch of nobody's to scrap to get to that level.  And everyone here is tongue in cheek worried about how soon Mauer will be wearing pinstripes, because we can ever afford to keep the best players, they end up going to places that can pay them more.  Sounds like a wonderful equal playing field where the best "team" will win the games........

Say what you will, but they must be doing something right, being that they make more money than any other team in baseball, have the highest "net worth" of any team in baseball, and have more championships to back it up than any other team in baseball.  THAT'S what I was saying. 

You need to compare the payrolls to the other teams in their divisions, not to the entire league. For example, the Dodgers are only 11th in payroll, but among NL West teams, they are 1st, by $20M.

See there we go again, they act entitled because of their history.  If they can have a debate without bringing up the previous 26, that might be a start.  2nd, Janet, sweetheart, they have the highest net worth, because they represent the largest population center in the nation and the league and have a brand new stadium and have a cable contract that rakes it in, etc, again part of that being that more people want to watch them, again because of their past, but mostly because of having probably the largest fan base.

However even the founding fathers didn't always want the biggest states to have more power and control than the smaller ones, thus the Great Compromise and the senate where every state gets equal representation.  How about some equal representation in sports for every sized metro area... AKA a salary cap.  BOX!

The Yankees are the prime example of why baseball needs a salary cap, and it should end right there.

This is major league, not little league.  It IS a business, of sorts.  And sports is the only "business" where the competition whines and complains because someone is doing better and pays top dollar for a top-notch "staff". 
Each team has the potential for massive earnings (between ticket sales, concessions, merchandising, etc.), and should use what they have wisely.  To say that because one team has a lot more resources (money) they are dominating is ridiculous.  Obviously not since the Yankees have NOT won the Series in almost a decade!  And some of these teams that are spending 25/30/35 million dollars on their total roster payroll are basically signing their own last rites in the majors (there is NO way any team in the majors can't afford to have at least 50-60 million dollars worth of talent on their payroll).
And for as much as other fans say that Yankee fans feel so "entitled" ... well, I've never heard of so many fans playing the "victim" and being so "whiny" about the fact that they don't get a chance to win too.  At least not since t-ball.

Maybe someone can explain why the Yankees were celebrating in the dugout before GM5 with Cano saying "I'm number 1" then they lose the game. Or perhaps, Andy Pettite admitting to his team mates that he had nothing for the Phillies hitters in GM3. Perhaps explain since he had nothing for the hitters in GM3 on full rest how he'll be able to be effective in GM6 on short rest? How about explaining why the "BOSS" was always quoted as saying heads are gonna roll because he spent excessive amounts of money and the product he put on the field couldn't match the money that left his pockets? someone mentioned bandwagon Phillies fans. LOL How many sell out games have the Yankees had this year, minus the playoffs? How many sell out games have the Phillies had the past 2 years? If you think the Yankees made this series without money being a factor than you're as delusional as most obnoxious Yankees fans.

Smart, smart, smart, smart, smart, smart and SMART!  End of debate! 

Oh no, NOT 10 whole years, how horrible, they haven't won the Series since 2000, that's SOOOOO long.  See what I mean by entitled?  Geez Janet, I'm not asking for pre-school here, but at least in the NFL (usually, almost) every year, just about every team can have some hope in Aug and Sept.  It didn't used to be that way until the era of free-agency and the salary cap.  Now it's a business, every team can still spend the way they want, to a point and still make good moves or bad moves, coach well or not, play well or not, but those are the things that should decide if a team is better, not when one spends twice as much as many of the other teams.

Really?  Electoral college.

And, ummm, NY has a huge population.  So does LA, and many other major cities (most of which have their OWN team).  The Yankees have huge cable deals, like you said, because they have big-name players and win championships.  But you don't GET big-name players and cable deals without first winning championships.  Had to start somewhere.  The Yankee organization built itself up over many decades of good BUSINESS (because really, that's what it is ... period).  Any team could do the same, over time, like the Yankees did, over time.  They went through patches of having losing teams.  Did they just whine about the other teams that spent more, or had better players, or a nicer stadium, or more fans?  No, because that's not what matters.  They built up their team again, over time, utilizing both their farm system AND revenue they made over the years to spend on some big-name stars.  Sometimes it works out (this year, for example), sometimes it doesn't (the past several years before 2009).  It ebbs and flows.  But teams that care to win and are smart with their management style will constantly work harder to make more money so that they CAN win, instead of just complaining about NOT winning.

Yeah, NFL teams do all have hope in August/September.  Then they realize that it's the same thing no matter whether you have a salary cap or not.  Evidenced in teams winning, ummmm, 0 games all season long and others going undefeated (or losing A game). 
Wouldn't it stand to reason, then, that even WITH a salary cap you'd probably still have the same issues?  What is a fair cap?  50 million?  100 million?  150 million?  Let's say they make it 100 million bucks.  A team like the Pirates, that spent 25 million dollars on payroll in 2009 would STILL be screwed, let's be honest.  It would, AT BEST, make it more competitive for the top handful of teams, and the ones that scrape the bottom of the barrel now would be doing the same thing with a cap. 

Spare us with this crap of "the Yankees haven't won a WS since 2000" Steinbrenner spent money in 01 they lost to Arizona. Steinbrenner spent more money the Angels put them out 02. More money shelled out in 03 Marlins beat them in the WS etc etc. I can pull up all the contracts dating back to 2000. Bottom Line is if the Yankees lose this Series, Hank and Hal aren't going to be pleased by any means. I've said a few times I'll say it again. When you build a 700 million dollar ballpark, spend almost 500 million on 3 ball players and have a 200 million dollar payroll you not only BETTER make the WS but you BEST win it as well. You say money isn't a factor I gurantee it's a HUGE factor just go ask the Steinbrenner's

Ugh, Janet, I don't think you get it.  It ebbs and flows, but one year the Bengals are down, the next year they are doing well.  Part of that is good management, part of that is good players having a down year and figuring it out the next year and part of that is b/c they made a few free agent moves to shore up their team.  The same thing could be said about most well run teams in the NFL.  There are a few that aren't and are always bad, Browns for one, Cards used to be like that, etc.  The Twins are a very well run team, they get a LOT out of what they have, and they've won their division a bunch in the past few years.  Part of that is good drafting, Mauer and a great farm system and scouts and part of that is Gardy is a great manager at getting a lot ouf of a little. They are not a badly run team, they just can never compete on the bigger stage, they like the Pirates, Royals and many other small market teams can never compete no matter how much they do with what they have.  I'm not worried about the best player on the Vikes going to the Giants next year.  Both teams play on the same playing field, when it comes to the business of running a team.

Next year the Browns just might figure something out, if they get a good coach, draft well and spend some money on free agency, next year the Bucs could suddenly come back.  Next year we all know it'll still come down to the Angels, Red Sox and Yankees again in the A.L. When it could be anyone's game, then sports is actually interesting.  When we already know who's going to be at the top before the season is even played, why bother?  Baseball is broken and George takes advantage of that, and I can't blame him for that, even though I've wanted to for years. It needs to be fixed, and badly and what he does just shows how bad it is.

BTW, you must be tired. That is not about the Electoral college, that is about how the legislative branch of the Federal government was set up by the founding fathers. ;)

The thing is... with football, teams are essentially punished for making poor financial decisions. The reason teams are bad in the NFL is because they made terrible decisions, and they have to pay for it. The Yankees, on the other hand, don't have to suffer for bad decisions. They buy their way out of it. And that's why people hate them, among other reasons.

A cap of about $125M would be reasonable, IMO. And then they could have a minimum of about $75M. That way, teams like the Pirates would have to spend enough to make their team at least somewhat competitive. And if the owners are unwilling to spend that much, make them sell. It's as simple as that.

But if that was the case, your Yankees would be screwed. With a payroll of anywhere under $150M, they would suck, unless they had a drastic change in management.

Actually it was about what YOU said about larger states not having more power or control than smaller ones.  The Electoral College is a perfect example to refute what you said since larger, more populated state have more say in the running of our nation, sicne they, essentially, "count" more towards electing a president.
I'm always on the ball.  Sure YOU'RE not the one who's tired? 

Please read my previous post here, that really explains it well.  And I did mention in the post you're referencing the Great Compromise.  This was about the split in the Congress.  The smaller states wanted equal representation.  The larger states felt they should have say based on population.  So, they formed the House based on population and gave it just a step lessor power and they formed the Senate based on 2 votes for each state no matter the size. What I said didn't have to do with the Electoral College.

"But if that was the case, your Yankees would be screwed. With a payroll of anywhere under $150M, they would suck, unless they had a drastic change in management."

This I agree with, partially.  I think replacing Torre with Girardi was a huge mistake.  I think Joe Torre was an outstanding manager and I wish he'd never left.

I don't think it's fair to say that poor decisions on the part of the Yankee organization don't really matter because they buy their way out of it.  If the Yankees were winning championships consistently, year to year, then maybe.  But they've had the highest payroll in baseball for a long time now, yet haven't won it all in years (and before anyone says anything, I'm NOT complaining about it, I'm just stating FACT).  The Yankee organization made some poor decisions/acquisitions in recent history that you, Pat, mentioned a few of earlier.  They came back to bite them in the ass ... translation, the team spent a lot of money but still didn't go as far as they would have liked.  Perfect example would be what jigga_2_k mentioned ... yes, in mocking me and my team, you're actually helping prove my point ... that the Yankees, with their immense payroll, STILL lost to teams whose payroll was a drop in the bucket by comparison (specifically the Marlins and Diamondbacks).  How can the argument be made that NY "buys" championships when they're not even winning them?  And they're losing them against teams that are spending a fraction of what they spend.  Payroll is obviously NOT the end-all, be-all in MLB play.  
Obviously there are SOME years when spending tons of money for all-star caliber players is helping the team to win, but it's not always the case.  So to make a general statement that the Yankees are "buying" championships is absurd.

Actually this is funny, but if you take the population of Wyoming and the population of your state and divide them by the number of votes each state gets in the Electoral College, each person in Wyoming who votes gets a higher % of the vote in his or her state.  Based on what I was talking about to begin with, The Great Compromise, which the Electoral College is based from, the number of members of Congress each state has. So, your vote is dilluted by sheer population size.

Then how do you explain teams like the Diamondbacks and the Marlins beating teams like the Yankees in the World Series?  The highest payroll obviously does not always win.  Period.  Perhaps if teams like the Marlins or Diamondbacks took advantage of such a huge win like that, they would have been able to generate more revenue through marketing/merchandising/ticket sales/etc. and could have started to build-up their own "dynasty", as many teams have done in the past (Yankees, Braves, etc.). 

Diluted vote or no, luckily for me, NJ traditionally votes Democrat anyway (like me).    So my state tends to go the way I want it to ... until tonight.  A Republican governor?  In NJ?  Really?  Did Hell just get slammed with a blizzard that I didn't hear about?  WTF?!  lol

"Payroll is obviously NOT the end-all, be-all in MLB play."

This statement is true. It's not EVERYTHING. However, you have to at least admit that the Yankees' inflated payroll has at least allowed them to be contenders every year. Even in their "bad" year, they still almost made the playoffs. For the Royals, Pirates, Reds, Padres, Nationals, and several other teams, that would be considered a good year.

Spending money doesn't necessarily guarantee championships... but it guarantees contension. No matter how poorly they spend their money, they'll still be near the top of their division.

Thank you Pat, perhaps she'll get it now.  It's not about having a fluke year, here or there.  It's about balance in competition.  If one team is always there and you always know who's going to be at the top and make the playoffs every year, why bother watching to begin with?  In the NFL most teams have a 3-5 year window before the tide turns again and then they have to rebuild.  You never know from year to year who's going to be good or even great.

The Marlins pulled a Yankees and bought the 1997 World Series title.  They couldn't afford to keep the team together, split up 3/4 of that team the very next year, and became one of the worst teams in the league...you were saying?

Hmm, maybe if we paid YOU more, Steve, you could be a tad bit more condescending. 
I "get it" just fine ... I just don't agree with it.  There is a difference. 

How could you disagree with it? It's not really an opinion. The only way someone could "disagree" is if they didn't "get it". Or, if they were just biased enough that they didn't care.

Wow, f*ck swine flu, this condescention thing is really getting around! 
Despite what you may think, Pat, your word is not law on this.  It IS an opinion as to whether having a salary cap in the MLB is necessary.  I don't think it's necessary and I don't think it's fair, quite frankly.  Teams that have worked hard for years to build up their franchises and invested a lot of money and time will get shafted because other teams that haven't done the same want a "turn" to win.  If teams like the Marlins want to blow all their money on a team they can't afford to maintain, that's their stupid decision.  If a team like the Pirates want to sink minimal cash flow into their team because they just don't care enough, that's their problem.  But teams that invest in their teams and try to produce a quality, winning ball club year in and year out should not be punished because they strive for excellence.

Ok, i was about to say that, but Pat beat me to it.  It isn't the idea that they'll win every year.  It isn't the idea that this is still sports and sometimes there will be upsets. It isn't the idea that the Yankees should be penalized for having a great team.  It is the idea there is no ebb snd flow, that they are always there.  Miss the playoffs a few times, don't get to a WS for about 10-15-20 years like everyone else, (except for the really bad teams) and then I won't say anything about baseball being boring, b/c I won't KNOW the Yankees will be there, no matter what.  How many WS have they played in, since they last won one?  They are always there....and before we just jump on Janet's team, the same thing could be said about the Angels and Red Sox in recent years, but until the Saux win 3 or 4 of the next 5 I won't jump on them just yet.

You don't think it's fair? Seriously? I'm speechless. How could it not be fair? If the teams succeed, then the people in charge MAKE MORE MONEY. But in the end, each team starts with a relatively even playing field. The success will be based more on how the team is constructed, and not just how much money is thrown at it.

And the reason the Marlins blew all their money on a team they couldn't afford to maintain, because that was their only chance of actually winning a championship, and they knew it.

I'm not trying to sound condescending, but I honestly don't understand how this isn't clear to you. For the most part, these aren't opinions that I'm throwing around. They're just simple facts. My word isn't law on this, because it's not just something I made up. It's just what has happened.

And I'm not saying that a salary cap IS necessary. That part is indeed opinion. But the rest, about how salaries impacts the game... that's all just the truth, not my opinion.

And I understand what you're saying ... I completely get it.  I just don't think it's right to punish the teams that have consistently tried to produce great, winning teams over the years by telling them how much they are allowed to spend.  If they've been smart and savvy enough with their money (and methods of MAKING money for their team) over the years to get to a point where they CAN "buy" talented players to create a winning team, they should be able to do so.  In my opinion.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say!  lol  I'm not disagreeing that there can be a very tangible effect on baseball as a whole.  What I'm saying it that I don't think a salary cap is a good idea and I don't think it's an effective solution considering that salary is not the only factor.  Would it help?  Maybe ... hell, I'll even say it's likely it would ... at least it would help SOME teams.  But I still don't think it's a good overall solution and I still do not think it's a fair idea.

You go Janet! I totally agree with you. Many of these so-called small market teams have been feasting mainly off the Yankees revenue sharing and they refuse to invest that money in a winning team. I commend an organization like the Minnesota Twins who invest their cash wisely and not just pocket the money

we almost made it through another of these without someone bringing up the other half of the necessary step.. thankfully Pat slipped it in.  it is not enough to have a salary cap to bring Yanks payroll down.. we then have to also have a salary floor to make everyone spend on their team.

I think a cap of $125 million is fine.  and the floor should $ 90 million.   however, there should be a mechanism in place to punish teams who try to ride the edges, especially the lower edge.  for example, if the Yankess outspend the Royals for 10 years in a row (which royals could block at any point by maxing out for a few years), then the Royals owners should be fined $20 million to come out of their own pockets and also forfeit their vote at the next owner's meeting or some other massive body blow to the owner themselves.

This would make necessary another change that must be forced on baseball.  Find a way to break up their ability to block the best potential owners for any new opening.  If KC can't afford to spend with Steinbrenner than let their owners go under and force them to sell to guys like Cuban.

All of this would lead to what needs to happen-- every team in the majors should be over $75 million already and the owners should all be able to cover any loss out of their own pockets.

Yes, covering it out of their own pocket runs risk of a long-term loser team crippling its owner.. but frankly, if they keep losing for that long, bring in fresh blood, and that means more than just the players.


I also sometimes fiddle with a system where any team that does not make it to the playoffs for 10 years, its ownership rights become vunerable and if a suitable buyer can be found, the owners are ousted.   But I am still working out the kinks in that one.

Most of this boils down to a simple doctrine.  Owners need to be in it to win.


I do have one other loophole I would allow.  If an owner looks at his team in the offseason and honestly believes it is a winner but his payroll is still under the floor, he will not be forced to spend the money to get up to the floor.  BUT if his team does not make the playoffs that season, he is gone as soon as a replacement buyer can be found.

Janet, I was not trying to be condescending towards you.  I'm asking you to take a step back and look at these leagues as a whole.  These are separate business to be sure, but unlike the real world of corporate finance, they don't win if they kill their opponents off the field.  The league has to be healthy and when it is, then all teams, all owners and all fans usually enjoy a better product.  The NFL has done a MUCH better job of this and it worked with a salary cap and revenue sharing.  If the Pirates are small market, then so are the Steelers, if the Twins are small market, then so are the Vikings, if the Indians...well that one doesn't work. LOL  Right now the Steelers, Vikings AND Giants all enjoy relative success and the Steelers have won it all a few times recently, as well as the Giants.  But the Giants aren't always there and they can't buy their way in, no matter how big their revenue base is.

I have feared if George just buys whatever he wants, the rest of the teams will start to fold and then who will he have left to play?  But another part of what helps the health of a given league is fans from EVERY team having hope, getting involved, buying merch, tickets, etc.  This is done by leveling the playing field as far as the finances are concerned.  Teams and owners can make as much money as they want, but they can only spend so much.  Some owners care about winning and they'll spend most of or all of the cap, some don't care and then you get the teams that still always suck.  I feel badly for those fans and hated when we had a cheap owner. The Yankees will survive either way, but the league will be stroner as a whole when other teams are competing on a more even playing field.  The good managers and coaches and GM's and owner will still put better products on the field, but so will more teams and currently can't, that don't waste their money.  I think my team could compete at the same level if we could afford similar level talent.  Thank you bobbynj2001 for your compliment

Have they really been that much smarter with their money? Or do you think that they're just benefiting from the biggest market in the country?

Do you honestly think that the Royals, Diamondbacks or even the Twins could EVER bring in the kind of revenue that the Yankees do? There are more people living within 50 miles of Yankee Stadium than there are in those teams' entire states. How could they possibly generate as much revenue as the Yankees?

thats right win or lose

Well, I think it's a combination of factors, Pat.  I mean, has the Yankees organization made ALL wonderful decisions with their money?  Absolutely not.  But name me one organization that hasn't screwed up in some way with their money.  Any other teams that haven't signed a player for a lot of money (relatively speaking) and then that player turned out to be a bust?  It happens all the time, whether you're signing the player for 2 million or 52 million dollars. 
About the marketability, once again, I agree to an extent.  Obviously the NY metro area is rather large and heavily populated.  But I think people are forgetting that, for starters, there are TWO teams in NY to split the fan-base up a bit.  Also, when you factor in the surrounding areas (mainly NJ, since we tend to support NY sports teams), it's still split up as the southern part of NJ tends to support Philly teams, not NY.  Now factor in teams from other very large markets, such as LA.  Los Angeles is a huge metro area, as well.  So is Chicago.  And there are several others that are comparable to NY in that respect.  If it's about the size of your team's market, why are teams from those areas still lagging behind (and by a lot)?  There's definitely a lot more to it ... an organization's ability to effectively manage their funds, and utilize them properly is a big factor.

I agree with you that the much smaller market teams will likely never be able to pull in anywhere near the kind of money that, say, a NY team would.  But my point is that obviously these are all factors into how well a team performs, but it seems clear to me that it's nowhere near the only factor since teams with similar earning capabilities are still not doing as well as the Yankees.  I still think it's not as much about how much money your team brings in, but how the organization chooses to spend it.

worth mentioning that in the case of Chicago, there are actually 2 teams in chicago too. 

as for "surrounding" area,  Milwaukee is pretty darn close to Chicago and they have their own team.   add in the fact that Chicago is not as populated as New york and there is still a gap.

The other areas can defend themselves if their fans want to talk about their geography and local makeup.