When Has a Yankee Official Ever Admitted This?

[RShack]

Yes it is the same idea, but how many of the current crop players will be lifelong O's? Which of Markakis, Jones, Wieters, Matusz, Tillman, Bergeson, etc, will still be with the team in 7-8 years?

The thing is, the Yankees can afford to throw money not only at their players, but they can sign any FA they want. And if those FA's don't pan out, they can add salary through trades without any consequence if those players fail to produce.

Well, it is what it is. I don't like it either. Everybody agrees their ability to spend unlimited funds on player salaries sucks.

You're talking about the present and the future, which has nothing to do with all the rings they already have. For the great majority of them, team payroll was not an issue for any MLB team. Players had zero rights, and they got whatever salary teams felt like paying them. And for their few recent rings, we can whine all we want, but their payroll was not crazy high. Their ability to ramp up team payroll to insane levels has absolutely nothing to do with the 26 rings they already have.

[Jagwar]

Well, it is what it is. I don't like it either. Everybody agrees their ability to spend unlimited funds on player salaries sucks.

You're talking about the present and the future, which has nothing to do with all the rings they already have. For the great majority of them, team payroll was not an issue for any MLB team. Players had zero rights, and they got whatever salary teams felt like paying them. And for their few recent rings, we can whine all we want, but their payroll was not crazy high. Their ability to ramp up team payroll to insane levels has absolutely nothing to do with the 26 rings they already have.

I agree. The current financial environment had nothing to do with the majority of the Yankees' titles.

My OP only suggested that you don't hear Yankees officials say anything that might minimize their "dynasty".

[sangell2007]

Ignoring the whole payroll argument, Cashman's statement just sounds ridiculous to me. Yeah they might not have won some of the ones that they won, but they just as easily could have won the World Series some of the years they finished second or third before divisions existed, if they had been the team to get hot at the right time. Not to mention that they might have faced different NL opponents some of the years they lost the World Series. My guess is that everything would have more or less balanced out in the end.

[RShack]

Ignoring the whole payroll argument, Cashman's statement just sounds ridiculous to me. Yeah they might not have won some of the ones that they won, but they just as easily could have won the World Series some of the years they finished second or third before divisions existed, if they had been the team to get hot at the right time.

Nah, back when they were dominant, they finished in 1st place 4 years out of 5.

They didn't have enough 2nd and 3rd place finishes to matter.

The only thing playoffs would have done is hurt them by giving inferior teams a 2nd crack at them in a short series...

[sangell2007]

Well there are 9 AL pennants that resulted in WS losses before the playoffs expanded to 4 teams, and 11 that came before they expanded to 8.

From 1903-1968 (discounting 1904), they finished second in 1906, 1910, 1924, 1929, 1931, 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1954. Between 1969-1993, they were the best second place team in 1970, 1974, 1985, 1986 and 1993. They also won the AL East but lost the ALCS in 1980. Obviously this isn't accounting for who would have been in what division, but that would be 14 years where they did not make the playoffs where it would have been reasonable to assume they would have in an expanded format, and an additional year where they made the playoffs but might have faced different opponents in a different system.

Altogether, that's 23 potential World Series victories under different playoff circumstances. So yeah, I think it's fair to say that things probably would have balanced out in the end.