Streaking

[nyjunc]

And on what basis do you consider the teams had similar payrolls? The average Yankee payroll from 1990 through 2000 was $52 million while the Tribe's was $39 million. The Jake opened in 1994 and in anticipation of a large increase in revenues there was a big bump in team payroll. From 1994 through 2000 the Yankees average payroll was $63.9 million to $53.2 million. The difference in those days allowed the Yankees to sign the best available free agent pitchers. The Tribe never had the money to sign even a single bona fide number 1 pitcher.

name me all the great FA pitchers we signed? We had Key for one of our Championships and he was a backup option after we couldn't sign Greg Maddux and David Wells was around for 1 of our titles. Cone we traded away 3 prospects for, Clemens we traded away established MLers for. Maybe if you didn't use the money you spent on Roberto Alomar when you already had a great lineup then you could have signed a big time SP. The payorlls were similar, maybe we had spent a little more but it wasn't outrageous like it is now.

You have to go back to 1999?

In 2004 Yankee payroll $184.2 million - Tribe payroll $34.2 million.

Who cares about 1 game, how did your season end up? We still went to game 7 of the ALCS and when we humiliated you in '99 we went on to win another WS.

You really don't get why the Yankees and their fans are so disliked. The bottom-line is that year after year they bought championships.

Show me the "bought" Championships please? In recent years we have gone back to our 80s days of relying on FAs but we haven't won a WS. We built our LATEST dynasty from w/in. We developed a core group and traded off many other players/prospects to acquire others. We didn't buy anything.

[Hmark6]

You really don't get why the Yankees and their fans are so disliked. The bottom-line is that year after year they bought championships.

Ah hahaha what do you think this is the first time we've heard this nonsense? Do you think you're the first person that has tried this crap on us?

There one reason why Yankee fans are disliked: WINNING!

[Jennifer]

Who cares what the payrolls are/were? Don't blame poor franchise management on the Indians part on the Yankees spending. The payroll of the Yankees is just a scapegoat for bad teams performing badly. How about you just own the fact that the Indians couldn't get over the hump in the 90s? How many "bona fide number 1 starters" did the Angels have in 2002? How many "bona fide number 1 starters" did the Fishes have in 2003?

What would you like the Yankees to do with that money? Sit on it? They earn the revenue that they create, so they should be able to spend it as they choose. That's called capitalism. This uneven-payroll debate is tired. The landscape of baseball has change so drastically this year that I thought we were done fielding these conversations.

Owners love the Yankees spending what they do. The Royals can't draw to save there lives, but all of the sudden when the Yankees or Red Sox come to town, Look! 35,000 seats filled!

Pretty bizarre answer. First off I wasn't the one to raise payrollsit was one of your comprades.

Second, do you have any facts to support your assertion about the Royal's attendance? With the unbalanced schedule KC gets to play the Yankees at home once every year. They have already played them this season. Average attendance about 24,000 (18,680, 28,033 and 25,590). Do you really think KC's owners love the Yankees for driving salaries so inordinately high that they can't re-sign their star players? Me thinks that they would prefer retaining players and being competitive to the measly 25,000 in incremental attendance. A winning team would raise overall attendance a heck of a lot more.

Third, much of the Yankees revenues are merely because of being in such a large market. For example, in 2004 the team had $315 million in revenues of which $130 million was in attendance. The next highest team was Boston with $220 million in revenues which also included $130 million in attendance. In other words, the Yankees made $95 million more than the number two team in non-attendance revenue. During the late 90s the Tribe sold out every game season after season. While the Yankees I believe consistently ran about 500,000 below them. Yet the Yankees revenues greatly exceeded that of the Tribe's solely because of the relative size in markets.

Link

Third, rather than ask rhetorical questions how about offering us all a comparison of the Angels and Marlins staff with the Tribe's. Or more relevantly a matchup of the Tribe's starters against the starters from the teams that beat them in the playoffs. Might want to start with the 1995 Braves.

Fourth, most bizare of all is your contention that the Yankees are being scapegoated for bad teams. No one beyond the age of 18 can believe that a team's revenues does not have a dramatic impact on a team's ability to be consistently competitive. Yes, good management can make a team competitive in the short-term from home grown talent that eventually ends up being lost in free agency. The Yankees win mostly with high priced veteran talent that it obtains.

[Jennifer]

Just because the Indians' (and most other small-market team's ) owner is a cheap bastard doesnt mean the Yanks are buying their championships. EVERY ONE of the owners can have a payroll like that of the Yankees. Instead, they choose to keep the profits rather than put them back into the team.

With all due respect you have no idea whatsoever about what you are talking about. I don't even have to touch your profit argument to show the absurdity of your argument. Only one team in 2004 and more gross revenues than the Yankees player payroll is this season. Most teams gross revenues were considerably less (you want to contest this than supply a link). No team not even the Red Sox can match the Yankees player payroll without going substantially in the red. This is because MLB team's have additional expenses which I believe averages something like 1/4th or1/3rd of overall expenses (this will vary depending inversely on payroll size).

So is your assertion of "every" owner your blowing hot air or do you have facts to support it?

[Hmark6]

Second, do you have any facts to support your assertion about the Royal's attendance? With the unbalanced schedule KC gets to play the Yankees at home once every year. They have already played them this season. Average attendance about 24,000 (18,680, 28,033 and 25,590). Do you really think KC's owners love the Yankees for driving salaries so inordinately high that they can't re-sign their star players? Me thinks that they would prefer retaining players and being competitive to the measly 25,000 in incremental attendance. A winning team would raise overall attendance a heck of a lot more.

Seeing how you like to do so much research, go ahead and look up who leads the major leagues in road attendence.

Third, much of the Yankees revenues are merely because of being in such a large market. For example, in 2004 the team had $315 million in revenues of which $130 million was in attendance. The next highest team was Boston with $220 million in revenues which also included $130 million in attendance. In other words, the Yankees made $95 million more than the number two team in non-attendance revenue. During the late 90s the Tribe sold out every game season after season. While the Yankees I believe consistently ran about 500,000 below them. Yet the Yankees revenues greatly exceeded that of the Tribe's solely because of the relative size in markets.

Great job finding the numbers! What you still didn't address is why should that money not go back into the team?

Third, rather than ask rhetorical questions how about offering us all a comparison of the Angels and Marlins staff with the Tribe's. Or more relevantly a matchup of the Tribe's starters against the starters from the teams that beat them in the playoffs. Might want to start with the 1995 Braves.

My point was that the Marlins and Angels didn't have a "bona fide number 1 starter" but they still got the job done. Both beat teams with "bona fide number 1 starters". They didn't make excuses and neither should you.

Fourth, most bizare of all is your contention that the Yankees are being scapegoated for bad teams. No one beyond the age of 18 can believe that a team's revenues does not have a dramatic impact on a team's ability to be consistently competitive. Yes, good management can make a team competitive in the short-term from home grown talent that eventually ends up being lost in free agency. The Yankees win mostly with high priced veteran talent that it obtains.

The crutch that Yankee-haters all fall back on is the old "They bought the ring" hook. You give no credit to the ballplayer that went out and busted their ASSES for 7 months to earn that ring. Not to mention that the losers take no resposbility for not getting the job done. The Yankees are beatable as we've seen since 2000. And since 2000 the Yankees payroll has exploded, so you arguement is self-defeating.

[Jennifer]

name me all the great FA pitchers we signed? We had Key for one of our Championships and he was a backup option after we couldn't sign Greg Maddux and David Wells was around for 1 of our titles. Cone we traded away 3 prospects for, Clemens we traded away established MLers for. Maybe if you didn't use the money you spent on Roberto Alomar when you already had a great lineup then you could have signed a big time SP. The payorlls were similar, maybe we had spent a little more but it wasn't outrageous like it is now.

Show me the "bought" Championships please? In recent years we have gone back to our 80s days of relying on FAs but we haven't won a WS. We built our LATEST dynasty from w/in. We developed a core group and traded off many other players/prospects to acquire others. We didn't buy anything.

Get real. The Yankees have been using money to buy championships since 1919. To claim otherwiseis to invoke form over substance. For example, while he hasn't won you anything, Randy Johnson is a great example. Yes you traded some players for him but they are not players that would have helped this year. Moreover, there is probably not a team in baseball that could afford to pay Johnson what the Yankees are committed to pay them. A few teams might have the cash to pay him but couldn't run the risk of his talents suddenly disappearing. The Yankees have sufficient revenue to take that risk.

You want me to demonstrate my point about the Yankees obtaining high priced pitching? I'd be more than glad to oblige. Identify the years you are talking about (I'm not playing the game of providing some examples and then your coming back and saying you meant different years).

A couple of more things. How about providing a list of these home-grown core players so instrumental in the Yankees success. Off the top of my head I can't think of more than a handful. Compare this to the large number of home grown core players contributing to the success of the A's, Twins and Tribe over the last ten years.

As for Roberto Alomar he was not signed until after the 1998 season. The Tribe had no second baseman who could hit or field. In obtaining Alomar the team got one of the greatest all time fielding second basemen. With Vizquel at short the Tribe had perhaps the greatest defensive keystone in the history of the game. Games are won with defense up the middle. In addition to Alomar and Vizquel up they had Sandy Alomar at catcher and Kenny Lofton in Center, each of them having won Gold Gloves earlier in their career. These players helped the team win a lot of games. Alomar also provided a perfect number three hitter for the Tribe with his speed, his ability to bunt and his skill at the hit and run and coming up immediately after Lofton, one of the finest leadoff hitters of this time and Vizquel with his speed, bunting ability and hit and run skills. What made the 1999 Tribe offense so awesome was not the power but the first three hitters. Seldom did a first inning end without at least one of these guys reaching base. If a dominant starting pitcher had been signed rather than Alomar the team would not have been any better. However, I'm more than willing to consider any facts you might have to support your early assertion that the Tribe should have tried signing a dominant starting pitcher than Alomar.

Lastly, I see that since you were proven wrong about the Tribe and Yankees relative payrolls you are now taking the tact that the differences were relatively insignificant

[Jennifer]

Seeing how you like to do so much research, go ahead and look up who leads the major leagues in road attendence.


Great job finding the numbers! What you still didn't address is why should that money not go back into the team?

My point was that the Marlins and Angels didn't have a "bona fide number 1 starter" but they still got the job done. Both beat teams with "bona fide number 1 starters". They didn't make excuses and neither should you.


The crutch that Yankee-haters all fall back on is the old "They bought the ring" hook. You give no credit to the ballplayer that went out and busted their ASSES for 7 months to earn that ring. Not to mention that the losers take no resposbility for not getting the job done. The Yankees are beatable as we've seen since 2000. And since 2000 the Yankees payroll has exploded, so you arguement is self-defeating.

I don't need to research to form my opinion. I know what I'm going to find when I look but unlike you I provide factual support for my assertions. You still have not done so. Is it all that hard, for example, to provide support for the Yankees road attendance?

More annoying is that you don't address the issues raised but avoid them and then offer nice sounding rhetoric to confuse the issue. The Yankees do have the highest road attendance, so what? My post responded to your blatantly false statement that the Yankees put 35,000 fans into the seats in Kansas City. After disproving it I then asserted that the benefit of incremental attendance resulting from a Yankees visit doesn't even come close to the detriment caused by what the Yankees payroll has done to many teams' ability to compete.

More importantly you completely miss main point. It has nothing to do with how big a profit the Yankees make or much they spend, per se. What many of you Yankee fans are unwilling to either understand or admit is that the Yankees large market provides an unlevel competitive playing field. The Yankees have remained competitive year after year because they have vastly more money than everyone else. More money than everyone doesn't gurantee World Championships as proven by the Yankees in the last four years. It does give them a huge advantage. This advantage is one that most Yankee fans will never admit, thus the problem we have with so many of you.

[Emo]

I love these type of Skankee arguments. Sweet entertainment. Jen, you're better off saving your breath on these type of people. You'll never get your point across because it's like they're not human to understand realistic baseball logic that you're pointing out. The best thing we anti-Skankee haters can say is let them keep spending and overflowing that payroll to as high as it can run, and overpay their rosters of old, worn-out, average, mediocre, overrated players. Obviously Steinie and Co. forgot actually how the Skankees won their championships and became a dynasty. Players that had chemistry aka a younger Tino Martinez, Chuck Knoblauch, Paul O'Neill, Scott Brosius, Andy Pettitte. And what do they do to keep their tradition going? Overpaying average FA's that just choke up the Stadium putting fans in a coma, and trading away every piece of talent in the farm system, has it benefited them? (Pavano, Wright, Giambi, R. Johnson, Mussina, just some of who I can think of) I'm sure Steinie has nightmares in his sleep thinking about Nick Johnson and Brad Halsey every night.

Even though every offseason they may have boatloads of FA money to use just because of the countless revenue and merchandise they receive from bandwagon fans that wear the NY symbol as a means of keeping pace with the fashion trend, this new era of the Skankees is absolutely nothing more but mediocrity, greed, arrogance, egotistics, and selfishness. And yes Jen, it's only the beginning, enjoy it.

36-33, while so far having to pass the Red Sox, Twins, Rangers, and Indians all battling for the wildcard? Numbers don't lie. Enjoy watching the dilemma girl.

[A's Baby Girl]

I don't need to research to form my opinion. I know what I'm going to find when I look but unlike you I provide factual support for my assertions. You still have not done so. Is it all that hard, for example, to provide support for the Yankees road attendance?

More annoying is that you don't address the issues raised but avoid them and then offer nice sounding rhetoric to confuse the issue. The Yankees do have the highest road attendance, so what? My post responded to your blatantly false statement that the Yankees put 35,000 fans into the seats in Kansas City. After disproving it I then asserted that the benefit of incremental attendance resulting from a Yankees visit doesn't even come close to the detriment caused by what the Yankees payroll has done to many teams' ability to compete.

More importantly you completely miss main point. It has nothing to do with how big a profit the Yankees make or much they spend, per se. What many of you Yankee fans are unwilling to either understand or admit is that the Yankees large market provides an unlevel competitive playing field. The Yankees have remained competitive year after year because they have vastly more money than everyone else. More money than everyone doesn't gurantee World Championships as proven by the Yankees in the last four years. It does give them a huge advantage. This advantage is one that most Yankee fans will never admit, thus the problem we have with so many of you.

You go girl!!

[Emo]

You go girl!!

Love females that know their baseball. Jen showing up Yankee fans with no fear? Even better. Hehe.

[realmofotalk]

Even though every offseason they may have boatloads of FA money to use just because of the countless revenue and merchandise they receive from bandwagon fans that wear the NY symbol as a means of keeping pace with the fashion trend, this new era of the Skankees is absolutely nothing more but mediocrity, greed, arrogance, egotistics, and selfishness. And yes Jen, it's only the beginning, enjoy it.

Ok, that's just plain anti-Yankees bias. Yes, we all know there are bandwagon Yankee fans, but doesn't every winning team have bandwagon fans? And any unbiased baseball fan would know that there are diehard Yankee fans that don't wear the NY symbol just to "keep pace with the fashion trend."

Mediocrity??!! Hah! Advancing to the World Series 6 times from 1999 to 2003 is mediocrity??!! Or are you implying this "new era" is based on this one freakin season alone?

[nyjunc]

Get real. The Yankees have been using money to buy championships since 1919. To claim otherwiseis to invoke form over substance. For example, while he hasn't won you anything, Randy Johnson is a great example. Yes you traded some players for him but they are not players that would have helped this year. Moreover, there is probably not a team in baseball that could afford to pay Johnson what the Yankees are committed to pay them. A few teams might have the cash to pay him but couldn't run the risk of his talents suddenly disappearing. The Yankees have sufficient revenue to take that risk.

Again, please show me how we bought our latest dynasty. Instead of telling me show some facts to prove it.

You want me to demonstrate my point about the Yankees obtaining high priced pitching? I'd be more than glad to oblige. Identify the years you are talking about (I'm not playing the game of providing some examples and then your coming back and saying you meant different years).

YES. During our dynasty years, '96-'00. You said we signed big time pitcher after big time pitcher so show me the tons of pitchers we signed.

A couple of more things. How about providing a list of these home-grown core players so instrumental in the Yankees success. Off the top of my head I can't think of more than a handful. Compare this to the large number of home grown core players contributing to the success of the A's, Twins and Tribe over the last ten years.

Jeter, Mariano, Posada, Bernie, Pettitte, Mendoza, Leyritz, Hernandez, and around them other home grown players were instrumental in certain years as players and as trade bait like Gerald Williams, Ruben Rivera, Scott kaminiecki, Sterling Hitchcock, Russell davis, Pat Kelly, Andy Fox, Ricky Ledee, Shane Spencer, Mike Lowell, Cristian Guzman, Eric Milton, ...

Lastly, I see that since you were proven wrong about the Tribe and Yankees relative payrolls you are now taking the tact that the differences were relatively insignificant

Proven wrong? What did you prove, I said they had SIMILAR payrolls and they did. The difference wasn't that great. Get back to me when you can actualyl back up your arguments.

Love females that know their baseball. Jen showing up Yankee fans with no fear? Even better. Hehe.

showing up Yankee fans? Just b/c you are also a jealous Yankee hater you agree w/ her although she brings little facts to the argument. Enjoy another non-Championship year watching your Giants

[General]

Close this thread already.

[realmofotalk]

Yes you traded some players for him but they are not players that would have helped this year.

Isn't that what contending teams are supposed to do??!!! Trade players that would not have helped this year for players that would?? It's funny that you were explaining why John Hart traded Brian Giles, Sean Casey, and Richie Sexson because they were "not players that would have helped" the Tribe that year.

Compare this to the large number of home grown core players contributing to the success of the A's, Twins and Tribe over the last ten years.

Wait, so you're trying to tell me these players were HOMEGROWN Tribe players?
Robbie Alomar
Ricardo Rincon
Dave Burba
Omar Vizquel
Juan Gonzalez
David Justice
Matt Williams
Travis Fryman
Marquis Grissom
Chuck Finley
Tony Fernandez
Mike Jackson
Bob Wickman
Orel Hershiser
Bip Roberts!
Wil Cordero
Marty Cordova
Jose Mesa!
Kenny Lofton(was an Astros farmhand )

And oooo, this comes from the Sports Illustrated's October 27, 1997 issue:

Cleveland won a pennant in '54 and then not again until '95, by which point Hart had built what looked to be a foundation for long-term success with young players signed to multiyear contracts. But Hart disliked the undisciplined personality of his team that he broke it apart and remade it. Two years later only 10 players remain from the club that lost the World Series to Atlanta.

[Jennifer]

Again, please show me how we bought our latest dynasty. Instead of telling me show some facts to prove it.

YES. During our dynasty years, '96-'00. You said we signed big time pitcher after big time pitcher so show me the tons of pitchers we signed.

Jeter, Mariano, Posada, Bernie, Pettitte, Mendoza, Leyritz, Hernandez, and around them other home grown players were instrumental in certain years as players and as trade bait like Gerald Williams, Ruben Rivera, Scott kaminiecki, Sterling Hitchcock, Russell davis, Pat Kelly, Andy Fox, Ricky Ledee, Shane Spencer, Mike Lowell, Cristian Guzman, Eric Milton, ...

Proven wrong? What did you prove, I said they had SIMILAR payrolls and they did. The difference wasn't that great. Get back to me when you can actualyl back up your arguments.

showing up Yankee fans? Just b/c you are also a jealous Yankee hater you agree w/ her although she brings little facts to the argument. Enjoy another non-Championship year watching your Giants

Where did I use the term "big time pitcher." In the years that the Yankees won three World Series in a row (1998-2000) the Yankees pitching staff had two pitchers who were drafted by them, Petite and Hernandez. David Cone was part a salary dump by Toronto in July 1995 (he was earning $8 million at the time). David Wells was signed as a high priced free agent after the 1996 season. Irabu was obtained in May 1997 having never played a MLB game. San Diego received a bunch of garbage plus $3 million in cash.

The bullpen that year had Rivera and Mendoza that came up through the system and the rest of the pen was compromised of pitchers either obtained in free agency or via salary dump.

The starting lineup had Posada, Jeter and Williams as the only home grown players and Spencer, Lowell and Ledee as reserves. Starters Martinez, Knobloch, Brosisus, Curtis, O'Neill, Strawberry and reserves Raines, Girardi, Sojo and Davis primarily came in salary dumps or free agency.

Primarily a team put together by cash.

In 1999 the high priced Clemens replaced Wells and in 2000 Negagle was obtained in July, the Reds wanting to dump his $4.75 million salary.

As for your trade bait argument are you dilberately misrespenting the facts or do you just not know what you are talking about? You assert that trade bait like "Gerald Williams, Ruben Rivera, Scott kaminiecki, Sterling Hitchcock, Russell davis, Pat Kelly, Andy Fox, Ricky Ledee, Shane Spencer, Mike Lowell, Cristian Guzman, Eric Milton, ..." were instrumental is trades. Most of these players were considered little more than bodies that allowed the Yankee trading partners to dump salary; Some didn't even serve that purpose. For example, Andy Fox made no contribution when he was with the Yankees (in 1996 with 189 ABs he hit .196 and 1997 with 31 ABs he hit a greatly improved .226). He was traded for Todd Erdos and Mike Jarzen. TELL ME HOW EITHER PLAYER WAS INSTRUMENTAL TO THE YANKEES SUCCESS. Erdos pitched a total of 34 inninings over three seasons and Jarzen never had a plate appearance for the Yankees.

Guzman and Milton became good players but had never played in the majors when they were traded by the Twins. To show how little value either team placed on them at the time they were traded to the Twins with two other players and CASH for Knoblach. While it was true the Twins were trying to get as much as possible it was nno secret at the time their primary goal was to dump Knoblach's $6 million salary.

There might be a few on your list that arguably were instrumental but most were not. I'm not going to waste any additional time on this but feel free to offer analysis supported by facts to rebut anything I said. Throwing out a bunch of names with a bare assertion proves nothing.

And quit playing the audience. Nobody is fooled regarding who is offering facts and who is offering unsupported opinion, ignorance and facts not supporting the proffered assertions.