Yankees Offseason Moves

andyfox · #1 10-12-2005, 07:21 PM

There was a week not long ago where I believe I set the record for ill-informed posts, on the philosophy forum. You're coming very close, and it's only Wednesday. I'm pulling for you.

The Angels won the same number of games as the Yankees and the Red Sox; the White Sox won just four more. The difference between runs scored and runs allowed was about the same for all 4 teams.

Since the Yankees "bought all these one tool players," they made the playoffs eleven straight times, made the World Series six times, and won four championships. The Red Sox won their first World Series in eighty-five years. While the White Sox swept the Red Sox this year, the Red Sox swept the Angeles last year. These things happen in short series between two good teams.

What one-tool players have hurt the Yankees and Red Sox?

sublime · #2 10-12-2005, 09:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There was a week not long ago where I believe I set the record for ill-informed posts, on the philosophy forum. You're coming very close, and it's only Wednesday. I'm pulling for you.

The Angels won the same number of games as the Yankees and the Red Sox; the White Sox won just four more. The difference between runs scored and runs allowed was about the same for all 4 teams.

Since the Yankees "bought all these one tool players," they made the playoffs eleven straight times, made the World Series six times, and won four championships. The Red Sox won their first World Series in eighty-five years. While the White Sox swept the Red Sox this year, the Red Sox swept the Angeles last year. These things happen in short series between two good teams.

What one-tool players have hurt the Yankees and Red Sox?

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, stop wasting precious moments of your life on deaf ears (I know, I should follow the same advice).

ThaSaltCracka · #3 10-12-2005, 09:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was a week not long ago where I believe I set the record for ill-informed posts, on the philosophy forum. You're coming very close, and it's only Wednesday. I'm pulling for you.

The Angels won the same number of games as the Yankees and the Red Sox; the White Sox won just four more. The difference between runs scored and runs allowed was about the same for all 4 teams.

Since the Yankees "bought all these one tool players," they made the playoffs eleven straight times, made the World Series six times, and won four championships. The Red Sox won their first World Series in eighty-five years. While the White Sox swept the Red Sox this year, the Red Sox swept the Angeles last year. These things happen in short series between two good teams.

What one-tool players have hurt the Yankees and Red Sox?

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, stop wasting precious moments of your life on deaf ears (I know, I should follow the same advice).

[/ QUOTE ]yeah for real, just ignore him.

sammysusar · #4 10-12-2005, 10:40 PM

yeah the yankees have a great record of success but they also have triple the resources of most teams. so it is not quite so impressive. granted yankees management has done alot to maximize some of the revenue streams but give any owner and gm, the new york city market and the yanks history and they would be successful.
if baseball had completely revenue sharing( all tv and radio money shared equally - cant ever happen) i think the sport would be better like the nfl. and the yanks would not be the great dynasty of the late 90s to now.

Voltron87 · #5 10-12-2005, 10:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
yeah the yankees have a great record of success but they also have triple the resources of most teams. so it is not quite so impressive. granted yankees management has done alot to maximize some of the revenue streams but give any owner and gm, the new york city market and the yanks history and they would be successful.
if baseball had completely revenue sharing( all tv and radio money shared equally - cant ever happen) i think the sport would be better like the nfl. and the yanks would not be the great dynasty of the late 90s to now.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think that people realize that during the 96-00 period the yankees payroll was 1/2 as much as it is now and they were not out of hand. they greatly, greatly outperformed their payroll by dominating in that period.

sammysusar · #6 10-12-2005, 10:46 PM

yeah that is definitely true the spread between the yanks and indians in either 95 or 96 was yanks 85 mil. indians 50 mil.

Voltron87 · #7 10-12-2005, 10:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
yeah that is definitely true the spread between the yanks and indians in either 95 or 96 was yanks 85 mil. indians 50 mil.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont know what this is supposed to mean.

sammysusar · #8 10-12-2005, 10:52 PM

in 1995 or 1996 when the indians were good their payroll was 50 mil. yanks payroll was 85 mil. since that time the gap has grown huge. i dont know the significance just what it was.

Voltron87 · #9 10-12-2005, 10:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
in 1995 or 1996 when the indians were good their payroll was 50 mil. yanks payroll was 85 mil. since that time the gap has grown huge. i dont know the significance just what it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh ok.

what i meant was that during the yankees' most dominant period, they were not spending that much more than the other teams. whereas today they are waaay out ahead, and not even close to dominant.