The Yankees Still Suck Baseball Salary Cap Poll

[eastender]

The Facts

Actually, I used the year 1955 quite consciously, that being the year the Dodgers won it all. My point was, clearly beyond your comprehension, that they didn't unload all of these guys prior to winning the championship deeming that they couldn't win with them as you humorously allege was the reason for the Indians letting Thome and Ramirez go, etc.

As for the players you mention replacing the Boys of Summer, only Wills was with the team within 7 years of the Brooklyn championship season. Odd that you mention Maglie, who was not with the championship team, but only with the Dodgers for a few months the following year.

BTW, Maglie's best pro season was with the Drummondville Cubs in 1949.

Your misuse of facts amazes me. Tommy and Willie Davis were with the Dodgers by 1960 clearly within 7 years of 1955. Basic arithmetic does not seem to be your strength.

I never claimed that Sal Maglie was with the 1955 Dodger championship team.
He was moved to the Giants after the 1954 season and brought back from Cleveland in 1956.

Both you and Korbel ignored the most interesting aspect of the mid fifties Dodgers teams - the 1954 season and how they managed to mishandle the Roberto Clemente situation who would have been an upgrade moving forward after 1954.

Letting players go is always a function of available replacements or talent offered in return. History shows that Roberto Clemente turned out to be vastly superior compared to Carl Furillo. No documentation has been presented that superior players were available or offered to the Dodgers between the end of the 1954 season and the start of the 1955 season for the players they kept,listed previously.

 

[eastender]

Never Said it Did

And replacing Jim Thome with Ben Broussard does? May I suggest engaging the brain before putting the mouth in gear?

Never said it did.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Never said it did.

ob·tuse [uhb-toos, -tyoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
2. not sharp, acute, or pointed; blunt in form.
3. (of a leaf, petal, etc.) rounded at the extremity.
4. indistinctly felt or perceived, as pain or sound.

 

[eastender]

Post #13

How amusing that he who is so busy listening to the dulcet sound of his own voice that he doesn't bother listening to what others have to say, clearly demonstrated that his posts wander off into the distance, never replying to others, also doesn't read what others have to say. (Narcissism is sooooo unattractive.)

You still haven't replied to Cosmo, who's post has not been deleted. (Number 13 in this thread.) Anytime now.

Post #13 in this thread is by you not Cosmo. A string of banalities trying to link a salary cap with the price fixing of hot dogs,beer and whatever else.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Post #13 in this thread is by you not Cosmo. A string of banalities trying to link a salary cap with the price fixing of hot dogs,beer and whatever else.

Cosmo's post is number 18. You'll have to take note of that, my obtuse friend, so you can continue to remind me of my flaws for the rest of the century.

 

[eastender]

Post #67

Cosmo's post is number 18. You'll have to take note of that, my obtuse friend, so you can continue to remind me of my flaws for the rest of the century.

I guess you missed the reply - post #67 in this thread.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

I guess you missed the reply - post #67 in this thread.

Yes, I did see the reply. Quite a long post. Can you explain why you didn't bother to answer his question?

 

[eastender]

Question was answered

Yes, I did see the reply. Quite a long post. Can you explain why you didn't bother to answer his question?

I did answer his/your question in post #67. You and Cosmo either refused or did not have time to respond to the issue whether the original question implied the Yankees reducing their spending below that of other teams or implied that the other teams should increase their spending to that of the Yankees.

Please provide supporting data about your assertion re the NY Yankees performance in the draft without grouping two distinct drafts to shade your answer. You have avoided the question for days.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

I did answer his/your question in post #67. You and Cosmo either refused or did not have time to respond to the issue whether the original question implied the Yankees reducing their spending below that of other teams or implied that the other teams should increase their spending to that of the Yankees.

Oh? Where?

Please provide supporting data about your assertion re the NY Yankees performance in the draft without grouping two distinct drafts to shade your answer. You have avoided the question for days.

Huh? Sigh.

 

[eastender]

Short Answer

Short answer to the question Rumples.

In 1998 when the Yankees DID NOT have the highest opening day payroll in baseball they won the World Series. Baltimore had the highest opening day payroll in 1998 and the did not win the World Series.

The Yankees have proven without doubt that they can win the World Series whether they have the highest payroll or not. That they choose to operate with the highest opening day payroll because they can afford it is another topic.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Short answer to the question Rumples.

In 1998 when the Yankees DID NOT have the highest opening day payroll in baseball they won the World Series. Baltimore had the highest opening day payroll in 1998 and the did not win the World Series.

The Yankees have proven without doubt that they can win the World Series whether they have the highest payroll or not. That they choose to operate with the highest opening day payroll because they can afford it is another topic.

Try again. Cosmo's question was not "Can the Yankees win the World Series once without the highest payroll?" It was, paraphrased, do you think they could have won the division consistently and the WS 4 years out of 5 without the highest payroll. As usual, you chose to answer the part of the question you wanted to answer while ignoring the heart of the question.

I give up. You're hopeless. That deaf, dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball.

 

[eastender]

The solution...............

Try again. Cosmo's question was not "Can the Yankees win the World Series once without the highest payroll?" It was, paraphrased, do you think they could have won the division consistently and the WS 4 years out of 5 without the highest payroll. As usual, you chose to answer the part of the question you wanted to answer while ignoring the heart of the question.

I give up. You're hopeless. That deaf, dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball.

Well then we have the Rumples solution. MLB as we know it will cease to exist and everyone who is a fan will create their own Fantasy Baseball League where they think their way thru a season. No need for actual stadiums, actual players, actual salaries,actual history,etc. Everyone will be happy.They will think that their team won. They will have their own Fantasy records,statistics,joys and tragedies. Somewhat delusional but if it works for you Rumples go for it.

What I or anyone thinks about that specific question posed does not change what actually happened and that is all that matters. The Yankees demonstrated in 1998 beyond any doubt that they could win when they did not have the highest payroll at the start of a season. This real baseball is what interests me.

 

[korbel]

Ridiculous.

Short answer to the question Rumples.

In 1998 when the Yankees DID NOT have the highest opening day payroll in baseball they won the World Series. Baltimore had the highest opening day payroll in 1998 and the did not win the World Series.

The Yankees have proven without doubt that they can win the World Series whether they have the highest payroll or not. That they choose to operate with the highest opening day payroll because they can afford it is another topic.

Hello Eastender,

Really, this statement of yours in bold is ridiculous. My premise is that playoff spots and championships most often follow the money. Just because a team isn't the top spender when it wins the World Series doesn't disprove my general maxim. I am sure the Yankees were very near the top of the 30 team ladder in payroll expenses in 1998...right. So they were still among the biggest spenders when they won in 1998 and that is exactly consistent with the maxim. In any case, one year would prove nothing. Even if a team with a small payroll does win, I already accept that there are abberations. But year to year being in the playoffs too often relates directly to the size of the payroll.

Now here is something I found by accident when I was looking for the MLB team payrolls for 1998. You can see very easily that in both 1995 and 1999 playoffs did follow the money generally. In fact, in the data given only 4 of 20 teams in the combined years had winning or losing records that went against propects based on payroll, and the average difference in wins between thos who spent and those who didn't increased as the rate of spending increased...at least in this comparison.

Notice also that the largest payroll in 1995 was $52.8 million (Yankees) and in 2006 the largest payroll was $208,306,817 (Yankees). Did you realize, Eastender, that the Yankees had expanded their payroll 357% in just 11 years and that their championships came in the largest and most rapid payroll expansion in baseball history...led by them??? It's simply F_CKING OBSCENE. No wonder so many accuse them of trying to "buy championships". Well, you are welcome to use and distill any stats as you want. But these show pretty precisely how obscene the realtionship between money and being a contender, even if not winning it all, has become.

Bronx Cheers,

Korbel



Forbes magazine annually publishes data that includes team revenue. Although no one can vouch for the accuracy of its data and analyses, it's the best we can do. According to Forbes here are the five teams with the most revenue and least revenue in 1995, with team payroll and record (* = made playoffs):




1995 - Haves

Team Revenue Payroll Record
Yankees $97.68M $58.2 (1) 79-65*
Orioles $76.48M $48.7 (2) 71-73
Braves $76.14M $47.0 (4) 90-54*
Rockies $75.07M $38.0 (9) 77-67*
Indians $73.28M $40.2 (7) 100-44*
Average $79.73M $46.4 83-61 (.576)


1995 - Have-Nots


Team Revenue Payroll Record
Pirates $24.03M $17.7 (24) 58-86
Padres $25.88M $25.0 (22) 70-74
Expos $27.60M $13.1 (27) 66-78
Twins $29.19M $15.4 (26) 56-88
Astros $29.39M $33.6 (16) 76-68
Average $27.22M $21.0 65-79 (.451)
Four out of the five "haves" -- the Yankees, Atlanta, Cleveland and Colorado -- made the playoffs in 1995, while the Astros were the only team of the five "have-nots" to have a winning season.
Here are the same lists for 1999, the last season for which we have complete data:
1999 - Haves

Team Revenue Payroll Record
Yankees $177.94M $92.0M (1) 98-64*
Mets $140.59M $71.5M (8) 97-66*
Indians $136.78M $73.5M (6) 97-65*
Braves $128.27M $79.3M (3) 103-59*
Orioles $123.61M $75.4M (5) 78-84
Average $141.44M $78.3M 95-67 (.586)


1999 - Have-Nots


Team Revenue Payroll Record
Expos $48.80M $15.0M (29) 68-84
Twins $52.64M $15.8M (28) 63-97
Athletics $62.58M $25.2M (24) 87-75
Pirates $63.19M $23.7M (26) 78-83
Royals $63.55M $16.6M (27) 64-97
Average $58.15M $19.3M 72-90 (.444)

 

[eastender]

Methodology Issues

Hello Eastender,

Really, this statement of yours in bold is ridiculous. My premise is that playoff spots and championships most often follow the money. Just because a team isn't the top spender when it wins the World Series doesn't disprove my general maxim. I am sure the Yankees were very near the top of the 30 team ladder in payroll expenses in 1998...right. So they were still among the biggest spenders when they won in 1998 and that is exactly consistent with the maxim. In any case, one year would prove nothing. Even if a team with a small payroll does win, I already accept that there are abberations. But year to year being in the playoffs too often relates directly to the size of the payroll.

Now here is something I found by accident when I was looking for the MLB team payrolls for 1998. You can see very easily that in both 1995 and 1999 playoffs did follow the money generally. In fact, in the data given only 4 of 20 teams in the combined years had winning or losing records that went against propects based on payroll, and the average difference in wins between thos who spent and those who didn't increased as the rate of spending increased...at least in this comparison.

Notice also that the largest payroll in 1995 was $52.8 million (Yankees) and in 2006 the largest payroll was $208,306,817 (Yankees). Did you realize, Eastender, that the Yankees had expanded their payroll 357% in just 11 years and that their championships came in the largest and most rapid payroll expansion in baseball history...led by them??? It's simply F_CKING OBSCENE. No wonder so many accuse them of trying to "buy championships". Well, you are welcome to use and distill any stats as you want. But these show pretty precisely how obscene the realtionship between money and being a contender, even if not winning it all, has become.

Bronx Cheers,

Korbel



Forbes magazine annually publishes data that includes team revenue. Although no one can vouch for the accuracy of its data and analyses, it's the best we can do. According to Forbes here are the five teams with the most revenue and least revenue in 1995, with team payroll and record (* = made playoffs):




1995 - Haves

Team Revenue Payroll Record
Yankees $97.68M $58.2 (1) 79-65*
Orioles $76.48M $48.7 (2) 71-73
Braves $76.14M $47.0 (4) 90-54*
Rockies $75.07M $38.0 (9) 77-67*
Indians $73.28M $40.2 (7) 100-44*
Average $79.73M $46.4 83-61 (.576)


1995 - Have-Nots


Team Revenue Payroll Record
Pirates $24.03M $17.7 (24) 58-86
Padres $25.88M $25.0 (22) 70-74
Expos $27.60M $13.1 (27) 66-78
Twins $29.19M $15.4 (26) 56-88
Astros $29.39M $33.6 (16) 76-68
Average $27.22M $21.0 65-79 (.451)
Four out of the five "haves" -- the Yankees, Atlanta, Cleveland and Colorado -- made the playoffs in 1995, while the Astros were the only team of the five "have-nots" to have a winning season.
Here are the same lists for 1999, the last season for which we have complete data:
1999 - Haves

Team Revenue Payroll Record
Yankees $177.94M $92.0M (1) 98-64*
Mets $140.59M $71.5M (8) 97-66*
Indians $136.78M $73.5M (6) 97-65*
Braves $128.27M $79.3M (3) 103-59*
Orioles $123.61M $75.4M (5) 78-84
Average $141.44M $78.3M 95-67 (.586)


1999 - Have-Nots


Team Revenue Payroll Record
Expos $48.80M $15.0M (29) 68-84
Twins $52.64M $15.8M (28) 63-97
Athletics $62.58M $25.2M (24) 87-75
Pirates $63.19M $23.7M (26) 78-83
Royals $63.55M $16.6M (27) 64-97
Average $58.15M $19.3M 72-90 (.444)

Cannot discuss your premise that may have some merit because of methodology concerns.

If one looks hard and long enough it is possible to find data and a method for reporting same that supports a position. I respect Forbes but why introduce it so late in the debate. Also why look at the data in terms of percentages.
Talking about dollars while using percentages is somewhat iffy. I dare anyone to show me a bank deposit in percentages instead of cold hard dollars.

I will illustrate my points using the USAtoday opening day salary data base that was introduced earlier.

According to this data base on opening day 1995 the New York Yankees had
the second highest player payroll at $46,657,016 (the Toronto Blue Jays were higher).The Milwaukee Brewers had the second lowest payroll in 1995 at $16,189,600. On opening day 2007 the New York Yankees had the highest payroll at $189,639,045 while the Milwaukee Brewers had a payroll of $70,989,500. From 1995 to 2007 the Yankees increased their player payroll by a multiple of app 4.065 while the Brewers increased theirs by a multiple of 4.385. Based on this would it be accurate to state that the Brewers contributed more to inflation than the Yankees? Of course not.

That is the problem with percentages and multiples.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

If one looks hard and long enough it is possible to find data and a method for reporting same that supports a position.

Certainly no one would know this better than the master.

 

[korbel]

Right.

Cannot discuss your premise that may have some merit because of methodology concerns.

If one looks hard and long enough it is possible to find data and a method for reporting same that supports a position. I respect Forbes but why introduce it so late in the debate. Also why look at the data in terms of percentages.

Hello Eastender,

As I said, the timing was by pure chance because I was looking for something else. But so what. What does it matter when it was introduced. Is there some sort of strict script I am not aware of? Silly. I did not say this data was the ultimate set of stats everything should be measured by. It was just pertinent to the debate by providing some realization of how obscenely spending has grow since 1995 and how the biggest spenders have benefitted. That is very significant when my premise is based on the relationship between team salaries and the top tier of competitors.

But I did find it highly illuminating that you dispute nothing and instead quibble about simple methodology. Yes, numbers can be turned to many uses, but I think these hit you right between the eyes this time...lol.

Cheers,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Nothing Surprises Me

Hello Eastender,

As I said, the timing was by pure chance because I was looking for something else. But so what. What does it matter when it was introduced. Is there some sort of strict script I am not aware of? Silly. I did not say this data was the ultimate set of stats everything should be measured by. It was just pertinent to the debate by providing some realization of how obscenely spending has grow since 1995 and how the biggest spenders have benefitted. That is very significant when my premise is based on the relationship between team salaries and the top tier of competitors.

But I did find it highly illuminating that you dispute nothing and instead quibble about simple methodology. Yes, numbers can be turned to many uses, but I think these hit you right between the eyes this time...lol.

Cheers,

Korbel

Nothing surprises me. Same tricks were used by scoundrels during the early seventies when the whale hunt was the issue.According to some the whales would have been extinct within twenty years . Well we still have our fair share of whales.

 

[eastender]

National League

Let's look at the National League where our two Red Sox fans do not have a vested interest. Strongly suspect that if the Red Sox were more successful than the Yankees then this debate would be argued differently by our Red Sox fans. I may be wrong but I believe that Rumples prefers to limit comparative discussions to this millenium thereby excluding the various World Series won by the Yankees but including the rare Red Sox victory.

Between 1995 and 2005 the Atlanta Braves made the NL play-offs every year - eleven consecutive times. If we go back before the lost 1994 season their play-off streak runs longer than the Yankees streak in the AL. The Braves won the World Series in 1995. Such is the nature of the game.

Between 1995 and 1999 per USAToday the Braves had the highest opening day payroll in the NL.From 2000 to 2005 it varied by year - 2/3/4/2/5/6, 2006 they were 5, in 2007 they were 8 and still contending for a play-off spot.

In 2005 and 2006 San Diego made the NL play-offs, this year they are contending even though their payroll is 11th in the NL.

The NY Mets have had the highest NL payroll between 2003 and 2007 but their results do not mirror those of the Atlanta Braves between 1995 and 1999. The Mets have not won a World Series in the seasons between 2003 and 2006 and even if they were to win the World Series in 2007 they would not match the Braves string of five consecutive play-off appearances.

 

[korbel]

Let's look at the National League where our two Red Sox fans do not have a vested interest. Strongly suspect that if the Red Sox were more successful than the Yankees then this debate would be argued differently by our Red Sox fans. I may be wrong but I believe that Rumples prefers to limit comparative discussions to this millenium thereby excluding the various World Series won by the Yankees but including the rare Red Sox victory.

Between 1995 and 2005 the Atlanta Braves made the NL play-offs every year - eleven consecutive times. If we go back before the lost 1994 season their play-off streak runs longer than the Yankees streak in the AL. The Braves won the World Series in 1995. Such is the nature of the game.

Between 1995 and 1999 per USAToday the Braves had the highest opening day payroll in the NL.From 2000 to 2005 it varied by year - 2/3/4/2/5/6, 2006 they were 5, in 2007 they were 8 and still contending for a play-off spot.

In 2005 and 2006 San Diego made the NL play-offs, this year they are contending even though their payroll is 11th in the NL.

The NY Mets have had the highest NL payroll between 2003 and 2007 but their results do not mirror those of the Atlanta Braves between 1995 and 1999. The Mets have not won a World Series in the seasons between 2003 and 2006 and even if they were to win the World Series in 2007 they would not match the Braves string of five consecutive play-off appearances.

Hello Eastender,

You must be a terrific dancer because you sometimes seem to move around the issue without touching it. Until the part in bold I was wondering how what you were saying was connected to the thread. What moves...Texas Two Step...Tango...Electric Slide...then...THE HUSTLE...lol. If you throw in the Watusi or the Locomotion I think I will just have to cry...weeeeeep.

But to the point, you did show there are some inconsistencies with the "playoffs and championships follow the money" theory. But you did not show any consistent correlation of your view among the 30 teams as a whole. Certainly, money will never makes up for multiple injuries on a team, poor coaching decisions (the Red Sox have been through plenty of that), poor team chemistry, and other critical factors for success. But the weight of evidence I have seen concerning the 30 teams or baseball since the free agent era confirm what I proposed. I have not done a 30 years comprehensive analysis with the numbers you or EB love to idolize. But can you show these numbers favor your view. Over the long run, money seems disproportionately decisive since all teams generally have to face all the problematic issues inherent in sports. Given that year after year these problematic circumstances can account for most abberations it still looks like money the significant factor in team success. But congrats on your mini example anyway.

Cheers,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Hello Eastender,

You must be a terrific dancer because you sometimes seem to move around the issue without touching it. Until the part in bold I was wondering how what you were saying was connected to the thread. What moves...Texas Two Step...Tango...Electric Slide...then...THE HUSTLE...lol. If you throw in the Watusi or the Locomotion I think I will just have to cry...weeeeeep.

But to the point, you did show there are some inconsistencies with the "playoffs and championships follow the money" theory. But you did not show any consistent correlation of your view among the 30 teams as a whole. Certainly, money will never makes up for multiple injuries on a team, poor coaching decisions (the Red Sox have been through plenty of that), poor team chemistry, and other critical factors for success. But the weight of evidence I have seen concerning the 30 teams or baseball since the free agent era confirm what I proposed. I have not done a 30 years comprehensive analysis with the numbers you or EB love to idolize. But can you show these numbers favor your view. Over the long run, money seems disproportionately decisive since all teams generally have to face all the problematic issues inherent in sports. Given that year after year these problematic circumstances can account for most abberations it still looks like money the significant factor in team success. But congrats on your mini example anyway.

Cheers,

Korbel

Your expectations are out of line.

I will give you an example from another field - medicine. If a person sees that a drug that is to be administered to a patient is a poison and warns the nurse, doctor or caregiver of this fact there SHOULD NOT be an expectation that the person knows what medicine will cure the patient. It is sufficient that greater harm was not done.


One of the basics of first aid is "Do not do anymore harm".

My points should be considered within this context.

I have posted about the blatant lack of overall talent in MLB but have you or Rumples shown any interest in discussing such a topic that impacts on salaries? No, because after all this is not a Red Sox problem.