Jump to content

Addressing the Yankees' Unfair Advantage: Which is more likely?


Jagwar

Which is a more likely response from MLB to address the Yankees' Payroll Advantage  

101 members have voted

  1. 1. Which is a more likely response from MLB to address the Yankees' Payroll Advantage

    • MLB institutes a salary cap (with or without a floor)
    • MLB re-aligns, putting large market teams together
    • MLB moves a team into the NYC market


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Allowing other teams access to the NY market would be the best choice but highly unlikely to happen. I think it would have the best impact. But they could also fix the revenue sharing on both sides. But nothing is likely to happen when only a hand full of teams are really feeling the brunt of the disparity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of the three options listed, a salary cap is the owners' most likely response to this situation because owners everywhere--but especially MLB owners--resent every single penny of salary they pay. Always have, always will. So salary suppression for them is a bit of a Holy Grail.

The four of you out there who pay attention to my posts know that my version of "premium free agents" is "vastly enhanced revenue sharing". It remains my firm belief that this is the best, and perhaps only realistic way to solve the Yankee$ problem. It also remains my firm belief that--absent a couple of MLB teams actually losing money--we're all more likely to die in a meteor strike than to see this happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't think the Yanks have a competitive advantage?

I do. But I don't think it makes them invincible. And, I think there are a lot of other "disadvantaged" teams that - in lieu of whining about how bad they have it - go out and do something about it. It just really rubs me the wrong way when I hear the "it's not fair blah blah blah" refrain. Someone else has an easier shake in life. So, instead of working hard to make if for yourself, we're all just interested in making it harder for the big guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do. But I don't think it makes them invincible. And, I think there are a lot of other "disadvantaged" teams that - in lieu of whining about how bad they have it - go out and do something about it. It just really rubs me the wrong way when I hear the "it's not fair blah blah blah" refrain. Someone else has an easier shake in life. So, instead of working hard to make if for yourself, we're all just interested in making it harder for the big guy.

Noting the system is screwed up and wanting something done about it and doing your best to win within the confines of that screwed up system are not mutually exclusive concepts. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noting the system is screwed up and wanting something done about it and doing your best to win within the confines of that screwed up system are not mutually exclusive concepts. :D

I never said they were. But, when people start talking about realigning to put the "big boys" separate from the others...it just sounds like loser talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found this to be a very simple way to explain to Yankees fans how the rest of MLB views competing with them.

Suppose we play a game of Monopoly and I start with $5000 while the rest of the players start with $2000. That's what it's like to compete against the Yankees. Sure, the game still needs to be played, but they start with a very large comparitive advantage.

I've yet to have a Yankees fan really disagree with that premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teams stop crying and admit non-NY teams win the WS pretty darned often?

Who said anything about winning the WS? Isn't it about being in the playoffs, advancing, having a real shot year after year to win the WS?

O's fans would be much less... cantankerous, if the O's had even made the playoffs once or twice in the last 12 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said anything about winning the WS? Isn't it about being in the playoffs, advancing, having a real shot year after year to win the WS?

O's fans would be much less... cantankerous, if the O's had even made the playoffs once or twice in the last 12 years.

Non-NY teams make the playoffs even more often than they win the WS. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • PA intrusion wasn't all bad. He nixed the trade at the 2017 deadline that would've been Colin Moran (-0.2 career WAR) for Britton. 
    • I gotta give him some credit. Best O's teams in roughly 20 years
    • Didn't he have Trumbo already signed as a replacement for Davis?
    • Not to distract from the thread, but Duquette did not find Chen.   Before Duquette was hired, Buck Showalter spoke at some banquet and identified Chen as a pitcher the O’s were looking at seriously.  So, I’ll give DD credit for signing Chen, but not for finding him.  
    • Duquette basically sat next to Roch on a flight and basically said those words. I can't find the link but Duquette said there was only one person in the warehouse that thought signing Davis to that contract was a good idea. 
    • I’m kind of getting off point here, but the trade of Lopez did not cause these pitchers to be overused.   The bullpen actually pitched significantly fewer innings per game in the second half (3.65) than in the first half (4.08).   Akin, Tate and Krehbiel all were used more sparingly in the second half than in the first.  They may have gotten tired, but I’d say it had nothing to do with the Lopez trade.   Bautista was used a trivial amount more in the second half (0.41 IP/G vs. 0.40), though he tended to have longer outings than in the first half. Back to your point, I think if the team went to a six-man rotation, the trade-off would have to be that the starters would throw more IP/start than under a 5-man rotation.  Otherwise, you’re right that the bullpen will get overtaxed.    It’s encouraging to see that our starters carried a decent load in the second half of the season.  I hope to see more of that this year.  
    • Yeah, I think Dan deserves some credit here.  Good thread, WC. DD was a good GM despite having a hand tied behind his back almost at all times (no international scouting and signing in South American countries, Peter Angelos, Showalter, the Chris Davis fiasco, etc).  As mentioned, he did find some really good unknown players in Miguel Gonzalez and the little heralded Chen who were good performers.  He did what he had to do in order to keep the major league team in contention throughout most of the 2010s and I believe he did his best at drafting with a franchise that, under the Angelos reign, hadn't given too much to attention to the farm system. His fingerprints are still on this team, I'm not upset about it.  I liked DD, he was the first competent GM we'd had in a long time. I think this sums it up best.  He wasn't infallible, but his years here were mostly good.  Good teams to watch, sell outs at Camden Yards, playoff appearances, etc.  I would add to @glenn__davis's list that he gave in to Buck Showalter a little bit too much.  The Davis contract is evidence of that but I also feel like there were a couple of other times (I can't remember off the top of my head) where Buck got what he wanted, perhaps at the expense of the team moving forward.  Buck, as much as I liked him, too, made no bones about the fact that he wasn't interested in a rebuild or developing young players, etc.  He wanted his guys, his vets and I think that's another area where DD had a hand tied behind his back. 
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...