Should MLB allow the Skanks to buy World Series titles?

[YardBirds13]

MLB essentially allows the Yankees to buy playoff spots, not WS titles.

There is enough randomness and luck (mainly in terms of who is healthy and who is on a hot streak) in the playoffs that even a team that has twice the payroll of every other team really wouldn't be expected to win. Their odds are the highest, but not higher than the combined odds of every other team, or even close to it.

This is exactly right.

Since the Yankees started spending like crazy (2001 is a good year to start), they have made the playoffs in 9 of 10 seasons. 9 of 10! They have bought those playoff spots. They have lost in the playoffs because the postseason is a giant crapshoot, but they have been there nearly every year.

Sure, every other year or so there is a great story that makes the playoffs and makes a run (Tampa, Colorado, etc.), but the same basic teams are in there every year. I talked about this in the Teams of the Decade Thread I started. The Red Sox made the playoffs six times this decade. Same for the Angels. The Mariners and White Sox made it twice each, the Tigers and Rays once, the Jays, O's, Royals and Rangers did not. That's 8 of the 14 teams in the American League that made the playoffs two or less times in a decade.

Don't tell me there is parity in this sport. There isn't.

[beaner]

They lead the ALDS 1-0 right? What World Series title have they bought exactly? Come on people, let's see how this plays out before anointing anyone World Champs.

[Mad Mark]

This won't change until a majority of the other 29 owners aren't making a profit. For the most part, MLB owners couldn't care less about winning. It's all about making a profit. Since the system allows you to do that without winning and because the only teams utterly and completely screwed by the current system are Baltimore, Tampa and Toronto, nothing is going to change any time soon.

[eddie83]

This is exactly right.

Since the Yankees started spending like crazy (2001 is a good year to start), they have made the playoffs in 9 of 10 seasons. 9 of 10! They have bought those playoff spots. They have lost in the playoffs because the postseason is a giant crapshoot, but they have been there nearly every year.

Sure, every other year or so there is a great story that makes the playoffs and makes a run (Tampa, Colorado, etc.), but the same basic teams are in there every year. I talked about this in the Teams of the Decade Thread I started. The Red Sox made the playoffs six times this decade. Same for the Angels. The Mariners and White Sox made it twice each, the Tigers and Rays once, the Jays, O's, Royals and Rangers did not. That's 8 of the 14 teams in the American League that made the playoffs two or less times in a decade.

Don't tell me there is parity in this sport. There isn't.

There is not parity in the sport compared to what? In the NFL this decade in the AFC the Bills have not been to the playoffs, the Browns once, the Bengals once, the Texans (since 2002 expansion) zero times, the Chiefs twice and the Jaguars twice. This in a sport with 6 berths per conference. The Colts have 8 postseason trips in 9 years and the Steelers and Pats 6 each in 9 years.

I understand your frustration about the Yankees but not everyone can make it, baseball only has 4 berths per league per year.

[beaner]

2000-2009 Champions:

NBA: Lakers have 4 titles, Spurs have 3. Salary Cap League

NFL: Patriots have 3 titles, Steelers have 2: Salary Cap League

NHL: Devils have 2 titles, Red Wings have 2 titles Salary Cap League

MLB: Red Sox are only team with multiple titles...

There's a lack of parity in which sport again?

Can we PLEASE wait and see IF the Yankees win the World Series before we have another whine fest about how unfair everything is? I think the Twins may show up and play tomorrow.

[YardBirds13]

2000-2009 Champions:

NBA: Lakers have 4 titles, Spurs have 3. Salary Cap League

NFL: Patriots have 3 titles, Steelers have 2: Salary Cap League

NHL: Devils have 2 titles, Red Wings have 2 titles Salary Cap League

MLB: Red Sox are only team with multiple titles...

There's a lack of parity in which sport again?

Can we PLEASE wait and see IF the Yankees win the World Series before we have another whine fest about how unfair everything is? I think the Twins may show up and play tomorrow.

Titles is the wrong way to look at it, especially in baseball.

You can buy a playoff spot. And the Yankees have done that quite effectively. 9 of 10 years.

You can't buy a title because once you get into the playoffs its such a crapshoot, having a huge payroll and all the better players only gives you a slightly better advantage.

[Boy Howdy]

2000-2009 Champions:

NBA: Lakers have 4 titles, Spurs have 3. Salary Cap League

NFL: Patriots have 3 titles, Steelers have 2: Salary Cap League

NHL: Devils have 2 titles, Red Wings have 2 titles Salary Cap League

MLB: Red Sox are only team with multiple titles...

There's a lack of parity in which sport again?

Can we PLEASE wait and see IF the Yankees win the World Series before we have another whine fest about how unfair everything is? I think the Twins may show up and play tomorrow.

Not only that, but baseball still lets fewer teams into the playoffs than any of those sports.

[beaner]

Titles is the wrong way to look at it, especially in baseball.

You can buy a playoff spot. And the Yankees have done that quite effectively. 9 of 10 years.

You can't buy a title because once you get into the playoffs its such a crapshoot, having a huge payroll and all the better players only gives you a slightly better advantage.

Understood, however, the title of this thread is " Should MLB Allow the Skanks to buy World Series titles". The "Skanks" have yet to buy a World Series title, and have won less games than the Dodgers thus far in these playoffs, yet there are still three pages on how unfair it is that MLB allows the Yankees to "buy World Series titles". They've yet to buy one, correct? I know they've tried, but still ultimately have not bought any titles.

[RShack]

Understood, however, the title of this thread is " Should MLB Allow the Skanks to buy World Series titles". The "Skanks" have yet to buy a World Series title, and have won less games than the Dodgers thus far in these playoffs, yet there are still three pages on how unfair it is that MLB allows the Yankees to "buy World Series titles". They've yet to buy one, correct? I know they've tried, but still ultimately have not bought any titles.

Well, seems to me like you've got him on a technicality. I think most everybody agrees that the MFY's spending like they do, and having it be so far out of scale to what others do, is not a good thing for the game. In other words, I think the thread is really about whether MLB should let the MFY's continue to do as they please with their billions, rather than the specific thing about whether their billions guarantees rings.

[beaner]

Well, seems to me like you've got him on a technicality. I think most everybody agrees that the MFY's spending like they do, and having it be so far out of scale to what others do, is not a good thing for the game. In other words, I think the thread is really about whether MLB should let the MFY's continue to do as they please with their billions, rather than the specific thing about whether their billions guarantees rings.

And I agree to that it's not good for the game, however, it's not likely to change anytime soon and constantly crying about it isn't going to change anything for the better. I know people don't seem to think it matters that since they started spending like madmen, they haven't won a Championship. Their last "run" of WS titles came with a lot of their core players being homegrown ('96-2000). Doesn't prove anything, I realize, but it does show that spending all of this stupid money doesn't necessarily mean World Championships. And again, they've done nothing but win one game in these playoffs. There's a lot more baseball to be played.

[YardBirds13]

Understood, however, the title of this thread is " Should MLB Allow the Skanks to buy World Series titles". The "Skanks" have yet to buy a World Series title, and have won less games than the Dodgers thus far in these playoffs, yet there are still three pages on how unfair it is that MLB allows the Yankees to "buy World Series titles". They've yet to buy one, correct? I know they've tried, but still ultimately have not bought any titles.

We're on the same page bean.

You can't buy titles. However, they can buy getting a 1 in 8 shot at one every season, something nearly every other team in the league can't do.

But hey, here's to Burnett throwing up a stinker tomorrow!

[Hank Scorpio]

Here's a write up on Cashman from a MFY's blog that really kind of demonstrates the world in which they operate:

http://riveraveblues.com/2009/10/the-brian-cashman-appreciation-thread-18026/

Here's an excerpt that jumped out to me.

The Yanks could have used another starter, and there were a few available on the free agent market: A.J. Burnett and Kevin Millwood headed the class, but each had his flaws. Cashman smartly avoided that free agent pitching market, knowing that any short-term benefit these guys would provide, there would be long-term consequences. He passed on them, and while the 2006 pitching staff was far from stellar, it was still the right move.

The 2006 draft is also where the Yankees got a lot more serious about their minor league depth. In June they drafted Ian Kennedy, Joba Chamberlain, Zack McAllister, George Kontos, Tim Norton, Dellin Betances, Mark Melancon, and David Robertson. The team got serious about building their pitching depth from within, so they wouldn’t have to settle for what the free agent market offered. The Yanks echoed this approach in 2007, as three of their top five picks were pitchers, as were eight of their top 20.

Cashman’s approach is clear. From the off-season of 2005-2006 to the off-season of 2007-2008 he signed just two free agent pitchers: Andy Pettitte and Kei Igawa. The latter is an inexplicable signing that ignited the Cashman hatred. The former has been a constant positive. Then, in the 2008-2009 off-season, Cashman added CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett, two signings which, other than some blips from Burnett, have worked out smashingly.

So three years ago, signing Burnett would have been irresponsible because of "long term consequences" but signing him to a five year deal last winter wasn't?

After year 1 of a 5 year deal, they are crowning Cashman when two paragraphs earlier they lauded him for avoiding Burnett because of "long term consequences."

Also, what friggin' "consequences" are they talking about? Sunk cost? Please. Nearly every free agent pitching contract has long term "consequences" and if any team in baseball can absorb those consequences...

I think it might be time to join the MFY's message board just so I can sort of get a handle on what their reality is like. It may be fascinating, no?

[Boy Howdy]

The more the spend, the more I enjoy it when they lose. Particularly from my location behind enemy lines.

All of this stuff about superior talent is relevant to a certain point, but we're still talking about a game of the top percentile of baseball-playing human beings versus another outfit of top percentile baseball-playing human beings in a sport where the very best teams lose about 40% of their games and the very worst teams win about 40% of theirs.

Life ain't fair, so why should a sport that acts out much of the drama we face as fellow Earthlings be any different?

[Mad Mark]

There is not parity in the sport compared to what? In the NFL this decade in the AFC the Bills have not been to the playoffs, the Browns once, the Bengals once, the Texans (since 2002 expansion) zero times, the Chiefs twice and the Jaguars twice. This in a sport with 6 berths per conference. The Colts have 8 postseason trips in 9 years and the Steelers and Pats 6 each in 9 years.

I understand your frustration about the Yankees but not everyone can make it, baseball only has 4 berths per league per year.

Idiot owners hire incompetent general managers in the NFL, too!?! Glad you were able to enlighten us on that.

Now, let's take a look at the cities your consistent NFL winners come from:

Colts: Indianapolis. AAA Baseball. No MLB team at all.

Steelers: Pittsburgh. Longest streak of losing seasons in MLB history is ongoing, isn't it? Quintessential "small market" Rustbelt team.

Patriots: Boston. Red $ox are in top five in MLB revenues.

The Braves winning all those NL East titles never bothered me because they weren't capable out financially out-muscling the rest of the division. That isn't the case with the Yankee$. Never has been, never will be.

[eddie83]

Idiot owners hire incompetent general managers in the NFL, too!?! Glad you were able to enlighten us on that.

Now, let's take a look at the cities your consistent NFL winners come from:

Colts: Indianapolis. AAA Baseball. No MLB team at all.

Steelers: Pittsburgh. Longest streak of losing seasons in MLB history is ongoing, isn't it? Quintessential "small market" Rustbelt team.

Patriots: Boston. Red $ox are in top five in MLB revenues.

The Braves winning all those NL East titles never bothered me because they weren't capable out financially out-muscling the rest of the division. That isn't the case with the Yankee$. Never has been, never will be.

What is your point? I acknowleged the Yankees spending. The Colts hit the NFL equivalent of hitting the lottery drafting Peyton Manning. The Minnesota Twins are a small market team that has been to postseason 5 times in 8 years, if they can do it so can Kansas City. The Oakland Athletics have 5 postseason trips this decade. It doesn't matter if the Yankees win 120 games a year that doesn't stop the Pirates from winning the NL Central. I am bothered by the Yankees spending but equally bothered by the whining of how some teams never make it. Every sport regardless of economic structure has teams that perform well and those that don't. I responded to a post that stated the same teams win all the time. You are never going to have a situation where teams win equally.

If you think I like seeing the Yankees spend alot you are wrong. The NFL which I love gets constant ass-kissing from the media telling us about how all the teams can compete. Yet in that "perfect system" we are 4 games into the season and Cleveland, Tennessee, and Kansas City's seasons are finished. Oakland, Miami, Buffalo and Jacksonville won't be contending in my opinion either. That's 7 of 16 teams in the AFC just 25% into the season who aren't true playoff contenders. You will not hear or read any major stories talking about the lack of parity in the AFC but when it comes to MLB the media cries a river all the time. I never said the system is fair. I resonded to a post about parity that's all.

The NFL is a national revenue sport and MLB a local revenue sport. The NFL even with revenue sharing doesn't share everything. According to Forbes every team got $94 million in the NFL from national TV deals and another $22 million from the NFL Sunday Ticket, as you know MLB doesn't get that much. Without a salary cap even with all the revenue sharing you don't think owners like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder would spend more than others? The NFL took advantage of a weak players union something Selig didn't have the luxury of.