12/21/24
October 03, 2005
Yanks angry at Showalter for pulling stars vs. Angels: "There's a code of honor when so much is on the line," Rodriguez told the New York Daily News. "You hope people do the right thing. But you can't control what people do."
Sounds like the New York writers went looking for a story.
posted by yerfatma at 11:37 AM on October 03, 2005
And it's not like A-Rod would ever take a chance to just bad-mouth Showalter, right?
posted by yerfatma at 11:38 AM on October 03, 2005
Live by the head-to-head tiebreaker, die by the head-to-head tiebreaker.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 11:39 AM on October 03, 2005
I'm a Yankee fan, but saying there's some sort of "code" is ridiculous. It would be nice if every team would play every game with gritty determination in an effort to win. But the Rangers (or any team) don't owe anything to anyone. Like Cashman said, if the Yanks would have won one more of their 162 games, it wouldn't be a topic of discussion. The fact the Yanks changed their scheduled starter from Mussina to Jaret Wright on Sunday could have had the Indians saying the same thing if they (the Indians) would have won. Knowing Showalter was involved will always make you wonder if this fact (home field, screwing the Yankees) entered into his thinking, but he can do what he wants as manager of their team.
posted by dyams at 11:39 AM on October 03, 2005
This is only a story in Yankee land. Showalter can to what he likes with his team. If the mighty Yankees would have won more games, it wouldnt have come down to this. Yankees fanes had better enjoy watching thier team while they can. I do not think that they will get by the Angels.
posted by daddisamm at 11:41 AM on October 03, 2005
Well - I would hope that if something was on the line there is an honor amongst MLB players that they should perform. Of course, one could say the same thing about the Yankees pulling their starter (however, it makes more sense to prep the rotation for the playoffs). So, yeah, mostly a non-story. As I recall the Yankees had home field in the ALCS last year and well...
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:49 AM on October 03, 2005
thanks for the heads up daddi. and to think that all this time i didn't enjoy watching them :-)
posted by goddam at 11:50 AM on October 03, 2005
Showalter did it to honor three of the only bright spots in the Rangers' dismal season. If he had done it on the road, the Yankees might have a reason to bitch, but this was clearly for the hometown fans who stuck with the team.
posted by rcade at 12:05 PM on October 03, 2005
Well GD, I am glad you were using your time wisely! ;-)
posted by daddisamm at 12:08 PM on October 03, 2005
No wonder people hate the Yankees. There is no crying in baseball, ARod!
posted by bperk at 12:09 PM on October 03, 2005
Looks like that sweep at the hands of the Royals came back to haunt the pinstripes!
posted by Big D Alexander at 12:28 PM on October 03, 2005
OOOO those pesky Royals--Not to mention all of those losses to Tampa Bay!
posted by daddisamm at 12:31 PM on October 03, 2005
what dyams and bperk said. quit whinging and plaaaaaay ball.
posted by scully at 01:07 PM on October 03, 2005
I'm searching for the real team at fault here ... *puts fingers to temple* ... it's coming to meeeee ... The Yankees, who lost 10-1 in Boston on Sunday... Ding ding ding!
posted by wfrazerjr at 01:08 PM on October 03, 2005
I'm looking for the issue here. If the Yankees truly cared, Torre would have pitched Mussina instead of setting up his rotation for the playoffs he was already in. Again, seems like needless media-fueled controversy and Cover Boy can't help but give a quotation on a subject especially when it's in re: an ex-team.
posted by yerfatma at 01:26 PM on October 03, 2005
Showalter did it to honor three of the only bright spots in the Rangers' dismal season. If he had done it on the road, the Yankees might have a reason to bitch, but this was clearly for the hometown fans who stuck with the team. Well, not to be on arod's side, but he did take them out in the 3rd inning. Kind of stange. Why not the seventh?
posted by justgary at 01:28 PM on October 03, 2005
yankee fan here... all they had to do was win 1 more game...
posted by flaunted at 01:30 PM on October 03, 2005
Oh boo-freakin'-hoo, Showalter, who's not on the Yankees payroll any more, didn't play his team to make life as easy as possible for the most grossly overpaid team in the history of professional sports? Man, I hate the Yankees and I hate A-Rod being such an oversized whiny little bitch. Anybody want to take bets on whether George breaks $250 million next year if they bounce out of the playoffs in the first round?
posted by fenriq at 02:19 PM on October 03, 2005
WHY DOES EVERYBODY BITCH SO MUCH BECAUSE THE YANKEES MAKE SO MUCH? it is his money that he makes fromt he team, that isputs right back into the team....
posted by flaunted at 02:51 PM on October 03, 2005
flaunted, I have a problem with a team that has a payroll so incredibly out of the range of the rest of the league. Tampa Bay's payroll was a seventh the size of the Yankees. If baseball had a salary cap then the Yankees would have not even sniffed the playoffs. The disparity between the Yankees and the Red Sox (the second highest payroll) was more than $85 million this seasons, that's more than the entire bottom half of the leagues total payroll. That's for the difference between the #1 and #2 highest payrolls. People who are Yankees fans seem to overlook this very basic fact that they buy their wins. I could win the division eight years in a row if I have nearly unlimited resources to buy my team. Just go to the All-Star game and go shopping. I hate the Yankees because they don't play baseball, they buy trophies.
posted by fenriq at 03:03 PM on October 03, 2005
If the other owners wanted a salary cap, and the players agreed (a long shot, of course), Steinbrenner could hardly stop it with only one vote against 31. Conversely I would suggest that Steinbrenner is operating closer to the American guiding principles than any of the rest of the owners, using all his resources to build the best product possible and optimizing profit. So to fenriq and the other 'haters' I suggest taking a second look at your attitude: sports are about winning, it's what every fan asks of the team he or she supports. Do you hate someone for buying the biggest house or fanciest home theater system, just because you can't afford the same?
posted by billsaysthis at 03:12 PM on October 03, 2005
If baseball had a salary cap then the Yankees would have not even sniffed the playoffs. That's a pretty out-there guess. Some of Cashman's best moves this summer had nothing to do with the big-pay stars on his team. Chacon Small Wang Cano To suggest that he wouldn't know how to manage a team with a smaller payroll is just a guess at this point. Of course, Tampa Bay used to have a really big payroll as well, but they wasted it on lots of old and (pretty much) past their prime players. They lost over 100 games each year. They've just decided to fold up into a small ball and save as much money as they can at this point.
posted by grum@work at 03:18 PM on October 03, 2005
Thank God we've got Alex Rodriguez to protect the honor of baseball.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 03:47 PM on October 03, 2005
Steinbrenner is operating closer to the American guiding principles than any of the rest of the owners, using all his resources to build the best product possible and optimizing profit. I'm in total agreement, and I root for a small-city team with no hope of ever succeeding with the same formula.
posted by dusted at 04:05 PM on October 03, 2005
Showalter did it to honor three of the only bright spots in the Rangers' dismal season. This was clearly for the hometown fans who stuck with the team. I understand the idea behind this, but if I'm a Ranger fan, paying money to attend the final game of the season, then I'm kinda pissed having the three top players on the team yanked from the game after three innings. Pull them off the field in the eighth and let them get a standing ovation. But the third?? I guess that extra two hours of rest will pay dividends for them next season. My other (off the original topic) point goes along with what was said earlier. The Yankees drew over 4 million fans at home this season, and were second (behind the Red Sox) in road attendance. The team makes money, and George wants to win. It's his business, and he wants the best. In any other business this attitude is applauded. I said this many, many months ago, I believe, but it's kind of like me playing golf with a very rich associate. I golf with a set of old, knock-off clubs. This guy can afford the best equipment money can buy, and he uses it. Wouldn't it only be fair of him to NOT purchase all that great, state-of-the-art equipment so he can keep the playing field with me and my other loser friends more even? It's a reach, I know, but think about it. OK, don't think about it. All I know is the Mets owner (I can't spell his name) trys to spend lots of money and continues to lose, big time. It's not just spending money, but spending it the right way.
posted by dyams at 04:40 PM on October 03, 2005
(Posting this here because it's a mite fresher than the other playoff thread) What people miss about the Wild Card is that it's the only way in a Divisional league system to ensure that at least the top two records in each league make the playoffs. With the wild card system, it's mathematically true that the top two records in each league will make the playoffs. A one-game playoff is only needed if it makes the difference between a team making the playoffs or not (i.e., if the Indians had won those last two games). The reason the Yankees clinched on Saturday was because the Indians lost, meaning no scenario could arise where there was a 3-way tie. Had there been, I believe the scenario would have had the Yankees and Sox holding a one-game playoff to win the AL east, and the loser would then have a one-game playoff for the wild card with the Indians. I believe the schedule even had the White Sox not starting their series until Wednesday, which allowed Tuesday to be used if that Sox/Yankees vs. Indians game had to be played to determine the wild card. But since it was just a two-way tie, a head-to-head tiebreaker was used to give the Yankees the AL East title- and as DrJohnEvans so succintly put it, that same method is the reason the Yankees are the away team against the Angels. If they don't like that method, they should have shown up at Fenway today dressed and ready for a one-game playoff to determine the AL East, and found themselves potentially the away team against Chicago instead.
I always think back to the 1993 season, when the 103-59 Giants didn't even make the playoffs, or the 2001 season when the 102-60 A's wouldn't have made the playoffs under the old system. That the other teams in the playoffs may even be divisional winners with abysmal records like the Padres, or that head-to-head tiebreakers and one-game playoffs are used, is the mathematical price paid for guaranteeing the top two are in the playoffs under any circumstances. More than anything, it ensures that a worthier team is not shut out just because it had the misfortune of playing in the wrong division. Here's a quick chart of the times when the wild card in each league had the 2nd best record overall in the league. I didn't even count times when the WC team was only a game or so off, or the almost certainty that each year the WC team had a better record than at least one of the divisional champions:
| Year | ALWC no. 2 record | NLWC no. 2 record | WC made it to the WS |
| 2004 | X | ALWC won WS | |
| 2003 | NLWC won WS | ||
| 2002 | ALWC won WS, both WC in WS | ||
| 2001 | X | X | |
| 2000 | X | NLWC lost WS | |
| 1999 | |||
| 1998 | X | ||
| 1997 | X | X | NLWC won WS |
| 1996 | |||
| 1995 |
This year, the AL had standings that looked like this:
|
|
posted by hincandenza at 04:44 PM on October 03, 2005
Geez, Hal, I think Steinbrenner could definitely find some room in his budget for you. Part of me says, "Great job." Another part of me says, spend less time on the computer and more time outside.
posted by dyams at 04:54 PM on October 03, 2005
What is this "out side" of which you speak? Is that were the great fire ball in the sky is? It burnses, you see. It burnses our eyes!
posted by hincandenza at 04:56 PM on October 03, 2005
Conversely I would suggest that Steinbrenner is operating closer to the American guiding principles than any of the rest of the owners, using all his resources to build the best product possible and optimizing profit. Is a sport with a salary cap less American than a sport without one? Letting one team spend as much as five entire teams throws off the competitive balance of the league. Why is it any more laudable than giving the Yankees an extra out per inning?
posted by rcade at 05:48 PM on October 03, 2005
A one-game playoff is only needed if it makes the difference between a team making the playoffs or not I don't disagree, but it does seem weird the Sox lose homefield advantage to the Yanks (if it ever came to that) due to a tie-breaker.
posted by yerfatma at 07:11 PM on October 03, 2005
billsaysthis: Conversely I would suggest that Steinbrenner is operating closer to the American guiding principles than any of the rest of the ownersAnd I would argue that one of the worst things about America is the pernicious and mistaken notion that "Every man for himself" is somehow the most American of ideals. I think the American ideals include concepts of community, of greater good, and of the progress of all humankind. Our nation was founded on people working together for the common good, and our greatest moments as a nation and as people have embraced this spirit of the commonwealth. Personal interest is fine, and striving to better your own lot should be rewarded. However, when a confluence of geographic, historic, and financial good fortune allows one individual or sub-group to gain excessive advantage, it is in the best interests of the larger community to, as painlessly and gracefully as possible, reduce that disparity. The Yankees may lose for winning, after all: if overall interest in the game is diminished because only a small portion of the fan base ever feels like they have a chance, then the Yankees are winning the lion's share of an ever-shrinking pie called the paying audience. Steinbrenner will do fine, of course: for what he paid, he's made a King's fortune on the Yankees already, and should he ever sell even a lowball price would probably be the highest valued franchise in sports history. But revenue sharing and caps are in the best interests of the sport of baseball, Steinbrenner be damned. He's the outlier that proves the rule. I contend it is no coincidence that football and basketball, with their firm and parity-inducing payroll caps and revenue sharing, have thoroughly bested baseball in the ratings and popularity wars.
yerfatma: I don't disagree, but it does seem weird the Sox lose homefield advantage to the Yanks (if it ever came to that) due to a tie-breaker.I can understand why that seems weird, but it's really not. The two teams were tied after 162 games, both made the playoffs, and the relatively unimportant title of AL East Division Champion could as easily have been decided on a coin flip. Having a one-game playoff just for that would be unfair to both teams, who would lose the day of rest before the first round started. The season series is an adequate way of determining home field advantage if actual record is not capable of determining that. All other things being equal, the Yankees won a 19 game "playoff" 10-9 (which further goes to how spookily competitive and balanced the famed rivalry is, with such close margins year after year in almost every metric). What is more unfair is if we see a BOS/LAA ALCS matchup. The Sox and Angels had identical records, the Sox won the season series 6-4... but Boston would be the away team by virtue of being the "Wild Card". It seems the notion of season-series tie breaker should be used there as well- at least be consistent! It's one thing if the 1 seed faces the 4 seed by record, but the rules that the wild card can't face the team from its own division or is otherwise a permanent lower seed seems to break an otherwise workable system.
posted by hincandenza at 07:45 PM on October 03, 2005
I can understand why that seems weird, but it's really not. As long as you ignore the way things used to work.
posted by yerfatma at 09:06 PM on October 03, 2005
the fact that the yankees "buy " their victories is nonsense. countless teams have tried to copy their model and have broken the bank for high priced losers that ended up dragging their team into the cellar and the balance sheets into the red. Big ups to the yankees for spending the cash it takes to put a high quality team on the field and for having the good sense to know on whom to spend that cash.
posted by fade2244 at 10:14 PM on October 03, 2005
having the good sense to know on whom to spend that cash. judging from their recent free agent pickups i have to disagree with that. they've had horrible off-season signings that nearly put them out of the race this year.
posted by goddam at 10:20 PM on October 03, 2005
The write-up is crap. "Yanks angry at Showalter?" I realize that's the headline ESPN used, but that's no excuse... ARod's quote: "There's a code of honor when so much is on the line," Rodriguez told the New York Daily News. "You hope people do the right thing. But you can't control what people do." Ooooh! He's really seething! Too bad his talk of a 'code of honor' isn't much different from Ozzie Guillen's statement that he 'owed it to the Yankees and Red Sox' to play his starters against the Indians in the final series. Who knows, had he not done so, the Red Sox may not have even won the wild card. Clearly, ARod bashing is fashionable these days, especially among Sox fans. However, they should NEVER be allowed to forget that all it took was the slightest whiff of ARod wearing their uniform for them to chase their most beloved player out of town. Nomar who? But let's see if Torre can contain himself when asked of Showalter's actions: "It's surprising," Torre told The New York Times. "If his team was in the playoffs, I could understand it a little bit more. It's just surprising he pulled them so soon." Wow! All the hate in the world contained in just a few lines! But wait, there's more! Cashman really lets Showalter have it: "If we had won one more game, we wouldn't have to be worried about what anybody else did," Cashman told The Times. Wow. Just wow. I hope these two don't run into eachother when the Yankees and Rangers face off next season!
posted by crank at 10:44 PM on October 03, 2005
yerfatma: As long as you ignore the way things used to work.But the thing is, the way things used to work was a winner take all pennant-only system that had no playoffs, only the World Series. Then in 1969 a two-division winner-take-all system with two league championship series to determine the pennant winner. Now, with a 2nd place team in a tough division able to earn a spot via the wild card, those playoff games aren't necessary- both the Yankees and Red Sox got in. There would have been a one-game playoff this year for the BOS/NYY set if Cleveland had swept the Sox, and finished with a better record than both teams. So if Ozzie Guillen had put in 3rd-string scrubs and Cleveland had swept, Cleveland would be playing the Angels, while the AL East winner would be decided by a Monday game with the loser going home for the winter.
goddam: judging from their recent free agent pickups i have to disagree with that.I agree with goddam. If you have to ratchet your payroll up tens of millions of dollars every single year just to stay competitive, you are almost by definition spending your money poorly. The Yankees spent as much this year as the New York Mets and Los Angeles Angels combined, or both the Boston Red Sox and Atlanta Braves. Heck, if you could scrape together just $5 million dollars more, you then could pay the combined salaries of 3 different playoff teams, the Chicago White Sox, Houston Astros, and San Diego Padres! Or you keep your money local, and pay the combined salaries of the 1996, 1998, and 1999 Yankee championship teams with what the Yankees spent this year in order to be the "Away" team in the first round against the Angels. To that, I can only say... Ha!!! Managing only 95 wins after that kind of spending is not only a blatant attempt to buy a championship, it's an incompetent attempt to buy a championship! The chartmaster strikes again; note the 10, 20, even 40% increases in payroll, year to year:
YANKEE PAYROLL, 1995-2005 Year Median salary Total Payroll Increase (mil) % Increase 2005 $5,833,334 $208,306,817 $24 13 2004 $3,100,000 $184,193,950 $31 21 2003 $4,575,000 $152,749,814 $27 21 2002 $2,500,000 $125,928,583 $14 12 2001 $1,600,000 $112,287,143 $19 21 2000 $1,350,000 $92,938,260 $05 05 1999 $2,008,334 $88,130,709 $25 40 1998 $1,416,666 $63,159,898 $04 07 1997 $1,100,000 $59,148,877 $07 13 1996 $1,100,000 $52,189,370 $06 12 1995 $531,000 $46,657,016 -- --
posted by hincandenza at 11:15 PM on October 03, 2005
Clearly, ARod bashing is fashionable these days, especially among Sox fans. Arod bashing? The quote is exactly what he said, nothing more, nothing less, put out there to discuss. Is it fun playing the victim? Cause you do it really well. However, they should NEVER be allowed to forget that all it took was the slightest whiff of ARod wearing their uniform for them to chase their most beloved player out of town. Nomar who? Which led to their first world series victory since 1918. How could I ever forget THAT?
posted by justgary at 11:19 PM on October 03, 2005
Now, with a 2nd place team in a tough division able to earn a spot via the wild card, those playoff games aren't necessary- both the Yankees and Red Sox got in. Well, not quite, but I take your point. If the Indians had a better record, the game would have been played (like the Angels and the Mariners in '95 or '96).
posted by yerfatma at 06:06 AM on October 04, 2005
LOL at the "running" Nomar out of town. Addition through subtraction. How'd that work out for us?
posted by jerseygirl at 06:43 AM on October 04, 2005
Is it fun playing the victim? Cause you do it really well. I fail to follow your non sequitur. Please elaborate. There are no victims in this scenario, as far as I can tell, so I'll assume the above is an attempt at condescension. However, they should NEVER be allowed to forget that all it took was the slightest whiff of ARod wearing their uniform for them to chase their most beloved player out of town. Nomar who? Which led to their first world series victory since 1918. How could I ever forget THAT? Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc
posted by crank at 06:47 AM on October 04, 2005
Big ups to the yankees for spending the cash it takes to put a high quality team on the field and for having the good sense to know on whom to spend that cash. Only a Yankees fan could believe that their team earned every bit of its success. They've made some good decisions and some terrible ones. When you have a $200 million payroll, you can afford to make mistakes. Even the bigger market teams like Texas can't afford mistakes. Get stuck with the wrong guy, and you can't get someone better because you're eating his contract. I think the Rangers are paying A Rod and Chan Ho Park more to play for other teams than they're paying any of their starters.
posted by rcade at 07:33 AM on October 04, 2005
Yes, all told the Yankees actually constructed their team poorly this year. They're in the playoffs on the backs of three pitchers who comprise less than 1% of the team's salary. Their free agents signings - $60 million in arms were a total bust (outside of Johnson - who didn't really perform) and the guy they wanted to get rid of (Giambi) had a remarkable resurgence that I don't think they saw coming. Any other team is crushed by this. The Yankees can afford to simply keep millions sitting on the sidelines and going out and getting more players.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:11 AM on October 04, 2005
Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc Well, the initial logical flaw is the idea the pursuit of A-Rod led to Sox fans' dissatisfaction with a banged-up, shadow of his former self, malingering Nomar.
posted by yerfatma at 08:45 AM on October 04, 2005
Twelve of the fourteen AL team's fans can boo the yanks for their spending, but this is directed to red sox fans. Here's a comparison of the starting nine (including DH). Yankees - 5 original yanks(Posada, Cano, Jeter, Williams and Matsui (a bit of a stretch here)) Red Sox - 2 original sox (Varitek and Nixon) Yankees - 2 free agent signings (Giambi and Sheffield) Red Sox - 5 free agent signings (Ortiz, Renteria, Mueller, Damon and Ramirez) Criticise the yanks for their spending, but a little praise for their ability in developing talent wouldn't hurt.
posted by drevl at 10:46 AM on October 04, 2005
i thought Varitek arrived via trade? and yeah, you are stretching it with Matsui. he was a free agent, the yankees didn't develop him.
posted by goddam at 11:00 AM on October 04, 2005
Varitek's only major league team is the Bosox. Thay may have traded for him as a minor league player.
posted by drevl at 11:05 AM on October 04, 2005
He was traded from Seattle as a minor leaguer, therefore not a product of our farm system. Derek Lowe and Varitek for Heathcliff Slocum. So that's inaccurate to say he's homegrown. Also wrong about categorizing Matsui as "homegrown" unless the Yankees are outsourcing player development to Japan now. If you want to start with the "bit of a stretch" and also put Cano in there, stretch this: Red Sox original sox: Craig Hansen (P) , Papelbon (P) (On the ALDS roster), DelCarmen (P), Nixon, Hanley Ramirez (SS). That's not even getting into Abe Alvarez (SP), Jon Lester (SP), Dustin Pedroia (2B), Anibel Sanchez (SP), David Murphy (OF), Shoppach (C)
posted by jerseygirl at 11:41 AM on October 04, 2005
Red Sox farm system is vastly superior to the Yankees. Mainly because the Yankees don't care. Really, why should they. The Red Sox only care insofar as they are not considered to be in the same category as the Yankees. And they need to produce talent to make the trades the Yankees can't. Mostly because the Yankees can outbid the Sox for everyone. But the Yankees aren't stupid about it. They took Sheffiled instead of Guerrero, becuase they thought Sheff was a better fit. They didn't go crazy after a guy like Russ Ortiz - they have good scouting and their minor league is basically the rest of baseball. It's hard to fault what they've done, but it is true that they can absorb mistakes a lot more comfortably. Money = instant depth.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:51 AM on October 04, 2005
1. I think the Yankees do care, but they are several years from producing anything out of the farm system that is worthwhile. I know the more... astute... Yankee fans care about the state of the farm system, and they should. 2. The Sox aren't allowing the farm system to propogate simply to trade them all away. If they were going to do that, Epstein would have pulled the trigger on one of the seemingly million trade scenerios where the end team wanted Hanley Ramirez and/or Lester. 3. Cash alone cannot get you everything you want for depth and players and it doesn't absolutely trump other bargaining chips and it's certainly not a viable player acquisition "plan" going forward, that doesn't make sense. Otherwise, only cash would have went to AZ instead of Navarro, Vasquez and Halsey for Johnson. Soriano would still be in town.
posted by jerseygirl at 12:09 PM on October 04, 2005
In the 14 team International League, the Columbus Clippers (Yankee's AAA farm team) had the 5th best record. Maybe that's not up to Yankee standards, but it hardly reflects a "don't care" attitude.
posted by drevl at 12:09 PM on October 04, 2005
It also doesn't mean anything about the state of the team's farm system. I don't know about all other teams, but the Sox prospects are bunched at AA. Seems like the last 5-8 years AAA has become a place to keep a set of backups to insure against injury, like an NFL team's practice squad. You can argue it anyway you want, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an unbiased opinion that the Yankees farm system is healthy. Like Weedy says, it doesn't matter as much for them as it does for other teams (though it certainly matters).
posted by yerfatma at 01:17 PM on October 04, 2005
i'm actually quite optimistic about some of the guys in the yankee farm system. however, they are a few years away from being ready for the show. what disturbs me as much as the habit of trading these guys away is that they don't give the guys that may be ready enough opportunities in the majors (andy phillips, colter bean.) there's all sorts of rumors that cashman will be offered more control to stay and that stick michael has been given more input in the decision making. if this is true we may see more of what happened with the early 90s version of the team as far as developing and retaining players within as well as more prudent trades and free agent signings. (well, a girl can dream at least.) on preview, what yerfatma said. AAA isn't a good place to look for the state of your farm system. AA is where it's at. AAA seems to be the place that players to be named later go to die.
posted by goddam at 01:24 PM on October 04, 2005
Nice point, yerfatma and goddam. With three double a leagues, it's hard to make comparisons. In the Eastern League, the Trenton Thunder finished tied for 4th in a 12 team league. To tell the truth, I don't know what to make of that. However, it still doesn't appear that the Yankees "don't care" about their farm system as suggested (make that stated) by Weedy.
posted by drevl at 01:33 PM on October 04, 2005
Okay - qualification. They care, obviously - it's just not as essential to victory. It's impact is lessened by a payroll that can easily afford $250 million in salaries. You really don't have to develop too much talent when you can buy it. And that is precisely what the Yankees have done since Jeter came up. Geez - I overstated. I do it all the time. Figured you guys would know me like that by now.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:38 PM on October 04, 2005
I fail to follow your non sequitur. Please elaborate. There are no victims in this scenario, as far as I can tell, so I'll assume the above is an attempt at condescension. Well, you don't like the way the article was titled, and out of no where go on a rant about red sox fans hating arod. Would you have been happy if I had edited espn's headline to something like "arod slightly perturbed"?
posted by justgary at 01:39 PM on October 04, 2005
I just did a quick check of Forbes into the wealth of the team owners. I really feel bad for the Cubs and Jays. They are owned by corporations, which almost guarantees nothing positive will happen to them. Damned if I can figure out how the Braves do it, being owned by Time/Warner. Maybe Turner put such a strong system in place that even the corporate world couldn't fowl it up. I'm sure Yankee fans (at least old ones like me) remember what a mess CBS made of the team. Lucky for George. He got to pick up one of baseball's worst teams for a mere $9 million. Twins fans should really be pissed. They've got by far (to the tune of $2.1 billion) the wealthiest owner. He's also the cheapest owner. I think I'll make up a knickname for him. How about the T. Boone Pickens of sports?
posted by drevl at 01:42 PM on October 04, 2005
About time someone sticks it to the Yankees. I would have done the same thing if I was Sholwater.
posted by AJ_in_BN at 01:47 PM on October 04, 2005
Why does T. Boone Pickens == cheap? All I remember of ol' T-Boo was that he made a living out of greenmailing companies. He was so good at it the league change the rules, much like the NCAA banning dunking just because of Lew Alcindor.
posted by yerfatma at 03:21 PM on October 04, 2005
Well, you don't like the way the article was titled, and out of no where go on a rant about red sox fans hating arod. Would you have been happy if I had edited espn's headline to something like "arod slightly perturbed"? The headline didn't match the content of the article. The reaction to any quote is colored by the context in which it is framed. ESPN wanted clicks, and they got them by headlining the article the way they did. One line calling-out Sox fans for their irrational hatred of ARod is a 'rant?' I'm sorry, no. You guys loved him then. What happened? He even offered to take a pay cut for you. Do Sox fans at least still think he's cute?
posted by crank at 06:39 PM on October 04, 2005
Guess you weren't around much last year, Crank. Let me offer a pictorial refresher. http://images.google.com/images?q=AROD+SLAP&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=AROD+VARITEK&btnG=Search I have no idea why Sox fans wouldn't like him anymore! How odd of us all! Is he a good, no -- great shortstop and ballplayer? Yeah. In the last year since the "ARod Trade Saga" has he proven himself different than the otherwise dimple-cheeked stellar reputation he enjoyed? Yeah. Bingo, we've got bingo.
posted by jerseygirl at 08:16 PM on October 04, 2005
The headline didn't match the content of the article. The reaction to any quote is colored by the context in which it is framed. ESPN wanted clicks, and they got them by headlining the article the way they did. Yep, that's the way headlines work, be it websites or your local news paper. Besides, I didn't actually hear the quote. He could have been angry. One line calling-out Sox fans for their irrational hatred of ARod is a 'rant?' I'm sorry, no. You guys loved him then. What happened? He even offered to take a pay cut for you. Do Sox fans at least still think he's cute? But the link and topic had nothing to do with the sox. You brought them into it, and you're still doing it. It appears you have much more anger at sox fans than we do at arod.
posted by justgary at 09:31 PM on October 04, 2005
Sweet delicious irony.