The team went all-in on an extended strategy based on getting CC Sabathia and Mark Teixeira. Say what you will about Brian Cashman or the Steinbrenner family, it worked.
It’s the Series that capped the season, a real fall classic that comes at just the right time. 2009 didn’t have drama or records, but it was a combination of talent, market size, and economy that pushed the World Series and the playoffs to solid TV ratings and a mindshare that competed with the NFL. Who’d have thought we’d be talking about a ratings surge in one sport and a possible apocalyptic strike in another and have the positives going to baseball?
Maybe Joe Girardi does overmanage. Maybe Alex Rodriguez really is a choker Centaur. Maybe the new Stadium doesn’t have ghosts. What they all have now is a new championship banner and a set of rings on the way. Whether this was for George (as Selig said) or for their fans, #27 was memorable.
(Congrats to Hideki Matsui on the World Series MVP. Well deserved and a nice going away gift, perhaps. I still would have voted for Chase Utley, but I won’t quibble with Matsui.)
I think that back in 1960, writers had to pick the MVP before the 9th inning was over, and seeing how there was a walk off win that year, they really didn't know who was going to win.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Seems doubtful. His newfound clutchiness (to borrow a Colbert trope) notwithstanding, he remains an aloof, unlikable, not-quite-human sort — a skinjob straight out of the Leoben mold for any BSG fans in the audience — at least outside the New York media sphere. I suspect his next embarrassing celebrity relationship or extended slump will be pounced on as it has been in the past. I endorse this.
I'll call it now. Matsui goes back to Japan (and maybe retirement) after the season.
He hasn't played the field in a year because of his knees, which might limit him to an AL team, and besides maybe Seattle, the major contenders either have DHs or would look for other options. Besides, it's an honorable way to leave the game.
For those who argues that making the playoffs should be a requirement for the regular season MVP -- and that is plainly the right position -- I have no idea why that principle should somehow change in the playoffs. Chase Utley was the best player in the World Series. Period. He should win the MVP. The fact that his teammates collectively were not good enough to win the series is irrelevant.
For those who argues that making the playoffs should NOT be a requirement for the regular season MVP -- and that is plainly the right position -- I have no idea why that principle should somehow change in the playoffs. Chase Utley was the best player in the World Series. Period. He should win the MVP. The fact that his teammates collectively were not good enough to win the series is irrelevant.
The ws mvp award is kind of a tack-on trophy to show great honor, it doesn't really displace the greater glory of winning as a team. i can understand why people feel that the award should go to the winner. theirs is not a judgment of player performance, just the instinct for the guy with the great honor.
Agreed; it feels wrong to give it to an everyday player who doens't play every day, but through the spectrum of Win Probability Added (which isn't the only metric, of course), Matsui was in fact the most valuable player in the series. As per fangraphs' WPA calculation, Matsui led the WS with .631 (modulo my ability to add). The runner-up was Cliff Lee at .604; Utley checked in at only .207, failing to produce in a few key spots. If you want to give the award to the guy who made the most positive difference in the series (as opposed to the guy who played the best), Matsui is a perfectly respectable choice.
By win expectancy, Matsui was in fact the most valuable player (for either team) in the series by a fair margin (he had a cumulative +0.6, and ARod was next with around +0.33; Utley had +0.21).
You can debate the merits of win expectancy, especially because it doesn't consider defense so Matsui isn't penalized for DHing, but it is a data point in his favor.
It's too bad there's a certain joylessness in watching the Yankees win a World Series. They're heavy favorites who can only, at best, simply meet expectations. That said, man that's a good team.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
For all those who see a Yankees win as a win for empire, think of all the working class Yankees fens who see this as an example of how we can win - forever.
Im not a Yankee-hater but lets face it, it's easy to go all-in when you have the cash. It took Tampa years of drafting and developing to get to the Series just once, but the Yankees needed 10 extra wins this year to get them over the hump, and bought them via the best of the free agent crop.
The Yanks are one of a handful of teams that can afford to go all-in, then still have the cash to stay in the game if they lose the hand. They can go all-in repeatedly, compared to a team like the Rays that can only hit and miss once. If Tampa went "all-in" on two free agents like CC and Tex, their franchise would be hamstrung for 10 years, and that's assuming they could afford to pay those two players to begin with. If they didn't work out, its not like they could sink the cost and do it again in a year or two. There'd be no more all-ins, in fact they'd have to get up from the table.
As teams like the Yankees and Red Sox get smarter and smarter about building their rosters (thanks to BP and others), it'll soon be next to impossible for a small-market team to compete year after year. Yes, you might see those teams shoot for the moon every few years like the Rays did last year, but their margin for error is just too small to do it with what they have in-house. You can buy CC and Tex and go play the next day. Try and develop two players like that? 5 years at least, and that's assuming you drafted a future stud to begin with.
MLB is still competitive now because some big-money teams (Cubs, for example) still don't know how to use their money wisely. Call me a pessimist, but I don't see baseball getting more competitive as teams get smarter about spending their money. To the contrary, I think its the money-mismanagement by the bigger franchises that's keeping the little guys in the race right now.
Imagine if the Cubs, Angels, Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox and Mets signed only the guys that BP recommended? You'd have six super-teams spread across all divisions, head and shoulder above the rest because those teams would be able to outbid everyone else for the right players. The trick is knowing who to sign and for how much, and BP could be (is?) telling teams exactly that. Would other teams like San Diego or Pittsburgh ever stand a chance? I mean, seriously, isn't that why BP guys are being hired off by MLB teams? To help them figure out how to make the best use of their money?
Baseball intelligence is evolving inside the GM's office. Once the other major markets figure out how to spend their allowances like the Yanks/Sox do, you can forget about seeing the Rays or Pirates as consistent playoff contenders. Baseball's a business like any other. When was the last time you saw Wal-Mart get crushed by the ACE hardware store across the street?
The NBA and the NFL both have some version of a salary cap, and there is far more parity in baseball than in either of those two sports. When was the last time a baseball team lost 100% of its games in a season? The Detroit Lions did that last year, and they spend as much on payroll as everybody else. The Yankees went a decade between championships. That's not close to New England's football team or the LA Lakers.
Parity isn't measured by how convoluted and lengthy you can make your playoffs so that it's almost impossible for any team to be good enough to be declared champion regularly.
Also, if baseball teams played once a week (like the NFL) and/or heavily depended on one or two players (like the NBA) you'd have 0-16 or 15-1 teams with some regularity. Imagine Maddux or Clemens or Randy Johnson starting every game and going 8 or 9, often playing teams with Jeremy Guthrie starting every game.
The NBA has a salary cap, nearly every team makes the playoffs, the length of the playoff series is absurd (4 rounds of best-of-7) and still the same 4-5 teams dominate every year. This seems to be an argument against a salary cap.
And in regards to the "one or two" players argument; every NBA team has the same salary cap (I know there's some circumvention device, but every team has that, too.) So explain why the Clippers have never tasted the postseason while the Lakers do every year.
Frankly, if the bar is set at "2 good players" shouldn't there be MORE parity in the NBA, since finding- and paying - 2 players is infinitely easier than assembling a large roster of good talent? Theoretically, shouldn't the Clippers or Knicks be able to sign Lebron James and Dwight Howard and just dominate, if your point was legit?
Well, theoretically, a longer series would mean the better team wins; therefore, the fact that the NBA has so many long series would prove that the 4-5 teams that win every year have an even more massive advantage than in MLB. Right? The team that wins a long series is obviously better than a team that wins a short (let's say 5-game) series. There's less luck involved. (Frankly, if I had my way, baseball postseason series would be best-of-9 or even best-of-11. That would give a better sample size regarding true talent level.)
The longer the data points encompass, the more we can evaluate a team.
Which make the Super Bowl absurd - the idea that the better team for 60 minutes, out of a 19-hour season and post-season, is pretty silly.
so those 60 minutes are a more sizeable chunk, proportionately, than even a full 7 game Series. I care about baseball about 1000x more than football, but the Super Bowl can hardly be called absurd.
I don't think parity - as determined by how many teams win the championship or make the playoffs - is the right way to look at this. I like the idea that a championship can be built with good player development and roster construction, not just because the team has an economic advantage from being located in the biggest city. Teams can still make their own decisions on how much to spend, but if the revenue is distributed in a way that makes it possible for every team to keep the stars they develop or sign that key free agent, it makes the sport as a whole that much more interesting.
Don't forget that the NBA draft has 1-2 superstars and a small handful of impact players each year. That makes it much harder for bad teams to rebuild quickly. The NBA does have turnover among the elite teams, but the transition happens over 3-5 years instead of immediately.
The NFL has its elite teams, but they are primarily well-managed teams with elite quarterbacks. The Rams a few years ago went from worst to first, winning the Super Bowl. That has never and will never happen in baseball.
The top eight teams in payroll in 2009 were New York (both), Chicago (Cubs), Detroit, Philly, Boston, and both LA teams. When was the last time none of these teams made the playoffs? 1992.
"The NFL has its elite teams, but they are primarily well-managed teams with elite quarterbacks. The Rams a few years ago went from worst to first, winning the Super Bowl. That has never and will never happen in baseball."
Without even looking this up, I can recall 3 times in my lifetime when teams went from worst to first in MLB:
Here's an even bigger problem: Only 4 teams' nicknames have the letter "Y" in them, yet only once since 1991 has none of those teams made the playoffs.
Hopefully, MLB will address this outrageous situation soon.
For the time being, at least, it is possible for teams to take leaps ahead and get "smarter and smarter" about roster construction and player development. Last years Rays may be a good example of that.
Still, times change. Free agency has been around since the 70s and the Red Sox didn't win the World Series until 2003. The Orioles and Royals have tons of money, but either used it wrong or don't use it. Money definitely helps, but it's not an automatic win.
Regarding Wal-Mart getting crushed by ACE hardware, consider how Blockbuster Video got crushed by Hollywood Video, and the rise and fall of other entertainment juggernauts like MGM studios and United Artists.
The basic idea I'm trying to get across is it's very hard to achieve sustained dominance in any industry.
Yes, free agency has been around since the 70's, but the disparity has gotten worse. Just 20 years ago, the dominant teams in baseball were Pittsburgh, Oakland, Toronto, Minnesota, Cincinnati. Outside of the Twins, where are those teams now.
Today, it's a shock when the Yankees and Red Sox do not make the playoffs. Besides signing free agents, they get to keep their homegrown players, an option smaller market teams don't have.
Would the Indians have won a title if they had the resources to keep Sabathia and Lee, not to mention Manny Ramirez and Jim Thome, two future Hall of Famers?
The Yankees aren't doing anything illegal, but the playing field is far from level, and it's getting steeper by the year.
Comparing baseball to other revenue-making enterprises just doesn't work, especially in the case of MGM and UA. Film production and distribution hasn't been defended as a monopoly since 1948 and has since had to take on an ever-changing media world (TV, video, internet) chipping away at what it did best--make movies.
It's particularly hard to achieve dominance in an industry when the basics of the industry keep changing. You can't say that about baseball.
For all the talk about money spent, the Yankees have three players who are once in a generation players: a middle infielded/ top of the order HoFamer, an all-time great offensive catcher, and the greatest reliever of all-time. I don't care how much money the Yankees spend on starting pitchers and corner sluggers, those three pieces are quite unique and are all home-grown.
Growing talent is one thing. Keeping that talent once they hit their FA years is another. Very few franchises could (would?) have kept those three on the roster for all these years. Each of them is the highest paid at their position (actually, I don't know about Posada for sure - sorry that I'm not checking).
All three of those players were core guys in 2008 as well and they nevertheless missed the playoffs. Matter of fact, most of the other players were core guys a year ago as well. Who wasn't? Sabathia, Teixeira, Burnett, and Swisher. Add them to a contending team who narrowly missed the postseason, and...voila. Thus, the talk about money is completely legitimate and relevant in this case.
As a baseball fan with no real allegiance to either team, can I just mention that I thought game 6 was incredibly BORING? Pedro clearly didn't have anything last night and looked really uncomfortable on the mound, but the interminable wait between every...single...pitch was just painful to watch. It was pretty clear to me that one of the Yankees lefty batters was going to take him deep.
I suppose if Manuel had pulled Pedro for a lefty to face Matsui with the bases loaded that may have made the game more interesting, because I was pretty much 100% convinced Matsui was going to get a hit. And he did.
But the last few innings, after Howard's homer, were a snoozefest. I suppose if you're a Yankee fan that's a great thing, but as a baseball fan I wanted a more interesting WS clincher.
Seriously? It's Game 6 of the WS between the defending champions and the sport's greatest franchise. The best pitcher of the last 20 years is starting, and Pettitte ain't half-bad, either. There are all-stars and HOFers everywhere you look. And you were bored? You're obviously a baseball fan if you're reading and posting here... what else did you want?
One of the best moments of the whole series was Pedro's performance in game 2. He's not the best pitcher of the last 20 years, Maddux is, but to watch a guy who once had that kind of talent go out there and do what he did on smarts, guts & shoe string was one of those things that makes baseball so great. That's from a Yankee fan.
In a slight disagreement, I would say that Maddux had the better career, while Pedro was the better pitcher. And I loved watching him in game 2. But watching him last night was just absolutely painful.
What else did I want? Perhaps a game that didn't drag along at a snail's pace....maybe a manager (Manuel) that realized his pitcher didn't have anything and replaced him early. Maybe a final two innings that had even a modicum of drama. As much as I enjoy a 5-minute, 8-pitch at-bat, I enjoy those bottom of the 9th, 2-outs, bases-loaded, game-on-the-line situations a lot better.
Watching Ryan Howard strike out 13 times in 6 games isn't very interesting, no matter how much of a "baseball" fan i am.
"Watching Ryan Howard strike out 13 times in 6 games isn't very interesting, no matter how much of a "baseball" fan i am."
Why not? You don't like strike outs? Howard is an excellent hitter so it takes lots of skill and talent to strike him out. Plus, he always swings hard, so even when he strikes out I find it very entertaining.
I love strikeouts. What I hate is watching a guy with a .600 OPS against lefties this year have 17 of his 26 plate appearances (approx.) come against lefties and look pitiful in most of them.
It's either horrible roster construction by the Phillies or horrible lineup management by Manuel.
I'm sure that people way smarter than me have dealt with this issue ad nauseum, but if Ryan Howard is ever going to be a truly great player (as many claim him to be) he's got to figure out some way to improve his effectiveness against lefties. You can't be a poor man's Jose Molina against southpaws and be considered one of the game's elite, no matter how much you rake righties.
The goal of teams like the Jays, O's and Rays is to slowly, methodically, and painfully build a team with a true talent of 85 wins or so. Then when they peak, they have to hope the Yanks and Sox, with talents worth five or ten wins more, have off years while they get lucky and overshoot their pythags by 5 or 10 wins.
all team owners are very wealthy, YES has hardly put the Steinbrenners any closer to the top of the list; the fact is that they still earn the majority of their money from their actual business, shipbuilding, not from their franchise sports team. They own the Yankees for the same reason every little kid wishes he owned a baseball; to win. the true problem lies in the owners that operate it as a business, profit above all else.
I have always hated that "home-grown" arguement...they may have been "in-house" originally, but the Yankees are one of a only few teams that can afford to sign their developed talent beyond their arbitration years..heck, that can even afford to GO to arbitration...
"home-grown" no longer appies after a player hits his arbitration/free agent years. IMHO
Well if you hate the "home-grown" argument, you must really love the NFL where teams are penalized for developing great talent by the salary cap. Watching the NFL is truly rooting for laundry. While money certainly does help, especially with re-loading, as a Yankees fan, I'm pretty pessimistic going forward. There is no substitute for homegrown talent, and the Yankees' talent is getting old, and all those holes can't be filled on the FA market. These 5 championships since 1996 are largely the result of a prolonged period in the wilderness that provided great draft picks, and encouraged patience with young players. Developing HOF or near HOF-level offensive talent at C/SS/CF and the best closer happens only once in a great while, and it certainly isn't something you can just go out and buy. Yes, FA signings played a bigger role in this championship than the previous 4, but without Jeter/Posada/Rivera, this team wouldn't have won.
I agree. But the thing is, even if the Yankees aren't able to draft and develop their own talent, they are smart enough to know good talent when it comes available on the free agent market. Sure there have been some misses, but Teixeira and Sabathia are both top line players.
And yes, Posada, Jeter, Rivera, and Pettitte are getting old, but that's only four players and they don't have to replace them all at once because of 1) all the other talent on the roster, and 2) they all won't retire at the same time.
I am curious to see what the Yankees do with Jeter though. What kind of contract will they give a 36 year old (when he becomes a free agent) shortstop and what kind of contract will he demand? It should be interesting.
I agree with you to a certain point; the problem is that there's only so much top line talent that comes on the FA market at any given point, and it isn't necessarily talent that can address the Yankees needs. The point about Jeter, Posada, Williams is that these kinds of offensive talents at these core positions show up on the FA market once in a blue moon. Sure, the Yankees have the money and the smarts to complement that core with FA signings, but without that core, those FA signings aren't enough to create a contender.
Get ready for a winter of talk about the Yankees (and Mets, Red Sox et al to a lesser extent) and their money advantage. As a Red Sox fan, I admit the money gives them a huge advantage over the Orioles, Jays and Rays and I find it makes rooting for the Sox against all but the other wealthy teams much less interesting. The Yankees and Sox are not to blame for any of this. MLB and the owners are to blame for a winter of nothing but negative talk about the game. Fans of other sports may complain a little about losing a player to a salary cap, but they accept it as part of being in a league.
Not advocating for a cap, just saying fans in other sports don't complain and the current MLB system has people complaining all the time. More sharing of local revenue is the answer.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Is Joe Sheehan still picking the Phillies in 6? We can critique players, so why not critique analysts? Joe Sheehan's prediction of the Phillies in 6 in Sports Illustrated was based on his anticipation that Charlie Manuel would outmanage Girardi. I would put Manuel in the "less than bright" manager's club based on his handling of Pedro alone. I know the ability to articulate one's thoughts in a coherent manner isn't always the best measure of intelligence, but based on Manuel's babbling at the end of the game during his interview with Ken Rosenthal I can't help but wonder if the "less than bright" impression Manuel gave by his handling of the pitching staff wasn't accurate. I mean, Pedro had nothing, and he was left in too long in his other start as well. To me the Series illustrated the inferiority of the pitching in the National League, something that should be apparent when the first man out of your bullpen is Chan Ho Park. Cliff Lee is not Sandy Koufax, and his level of domininance when he came over from the American League speaks to the inferiority of the National League hitters, even allowing for the lack of the DH. Yes, I know he made the Yankees look sick the first game, so I wonder if Cliff Lee's success isn't partly from lineups being unfamiliar with him the first time they see him in a long time.
Yeah, Joe sure is an idiot because he got his World Series prediction wrong, unlike you dom, who got it dead on the nose right for the twenty-third year in a row. Congrats!
Chan Ho Park is actually not a bad pitcher out of the pen. You might want to make a habit of checking your information before posting.
And, lastly, I'm pretty sure the Yankees were familiar with Cliff lee, him just coming over from Cleveland (who plays in the American League) in mid-season. Oh, and he won the AL Cy Young Award last year too, so yeah, he's pretty good in any league.
Come on, it wasn't money, it was God. Mark Teixiera said it himself after the game... He prayed and God directed him to sign with the Yankees. No doubt God directed CC Sabathia and AJ Burnett too... Now we know that God sides with the guys with the bucks.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
More reason why baseball needs a salarly cap. The Yankees have made some of the worst baseball decisions in the last 10 years but are able to overcome those terrible decisions by buying a crapload of talent. Of course, baseball does not want this to change because Yankees + Playoffs = $$$$. I miss the 80s.
I assume you're referring to Pavano, Wright, and Karsay? The Yankees didn't win anything with those guys except blink-and-you'll-miss-it playoff appearances. If the Yankees had been able to swallow those mistakes and get someone they really needed, like Carlos Beltran, I think you'd have more of a point.
Once again, only Yankee fans consider a playoff appearance that doesn't result in a World Series victory a failure. Yankees fans are spoiled by their team's success. I remember what that was like. The Orioles were the most successful team (measured by total victories and playoff appearances) from 1966-1983.
I think the Yankees have a huge advantage because of the revenue from the market they occupy. I'll give them credit for generating revenue (but note that their revenue per capita in their market is nothing special league wide).
Also give the team credit for being willing to spend it on baseball talent rather than just putting it in their pocket, but I believe the Yankees' owners are making above average profits, even with the spending, because of the revenue advantage.
Developing Jeter, Rivera and Posada is a major accomplishment. Knowing that Sabathia and Texeira were the best free agents was simply obvious to everyone. They were able to sign them, again, because of their revenue advantage.
I don't support a salary cap. I would support significantly more revenue sharing.
Baseball is a lousy morality play. professional sports in general aren't a particularly interesting or effective way to discuss justice or fairness.
But baseball is a hell of a game, and often a joy to watch, if we can avoid poisoning our own fun by convincing ourselves that the most relevant factor is that the people who hold jobs we would die for are a bunch of idiots and crooks.
That was a great series, and had a lot of amazing moments and performances. And as well-paid as the Yankees are, they definitely had flaws that the Phillies were able to exploit occasionally. Congrats to the Yankees, and a big thank you to the Phillies for playing them hard and making the series suspenseful.
The Yankees win probably moves the industry two steps closer to a salary cap. Let's see what Cashman can do with a payroll on par with many other teams.
So the Yankees win for the first time in years and we're back to the old salary cap, evil empire outlook? We get upset because the Yankees expend tons of effort and money to win?
The Steinbrenners have had control of the Yankees since the 1970s, yet the Yankees have not won every year and still, baseball gets along and stays strong. Complain about the billionaires who buy teams as a tax deduction and pocket the revenue sharing.
The problem is not that the Yankees win, but that other teams don't do enough to win. You throw a salary cap, and the cheap teams still won't spend as much as the cap, nor will they make the smart moves needed to build a legitimate organization (as opposed to a one year wonder). In a capitalist society, should it be any other way?
The problem is most teams can't possibly spend the amount New York and Boston can even if they wanted to. The Indians, Brewers, and Royals don't have the revenue streams the big market teams have.
I'm sure David Glass thought the same thing when he took Wal-Mart up against Sears, Macy, etc. Small market teams can do well if they are organized well, but you're not organized well if you think Jose Guillen is worth breaking the bank for. Besides, the Yankees were still around in the 80s last I checked, and the Royals were able to win a World Series, show up at another, and win an additional division title.
The Indians went to the World Series twice in the 90s and since 1995 have won their division 7 times, beating out big-market Chicago repeatedly.
As for the Brewers, they're finally showing progress after spending a long time as Selig's farm club.
That was before cable networks, etc. I'm pretty sure the difference between the highest payroll and the lowest wasn't $150 million like it is now.
The Tribe's payroll was around $80 million going into the year, one of the highest in team history. That figure is about what the Yankees pay A-Rod, Jeter, Teixeira, and Sabathia (only one of whom was developed by New York).
Why the hostility Mattymatty? I didn't call Joe an idiot. My criticism was based on his assessment that Charlie Manuel would be a better manager in the World Series than Joe Girardi. I know Chan Ho Park has been an effective pitcher out of the bullpen for the Phils this year, as well as in his sporadic starting, but my point is addressed to the fact that Chan Ho washed out of the American League after signing one of the worst free agent contracts in recent history, and that his effectiveness is something we didn't see, and might not see, in the American League. The sidebar Joe Sheehan wrote in the Sports Illustrated article I am commenting on actually concluded that the Yankees were superior both offensively and defensively than the Yankees, but the deciding factor was the managing. Hence Joe's prediction. I don't get paid for writing about baseball, Joe does, and he does so with great insight, and he was probably asked by SI to venture an opinion, and he happened to be wrong this time. Just because I point that out, and just because I remember when Charlie Manuel was managing in Cleveland, and I thought he was a dolt then, doesn't mean I am setting myself as some sort of superior analyst or in any way mocking Mr Sheehan. I am entitled to my opinion, which also embraced the hardly shocking notion that the greater familiarity batters have with a pitcher, the better they will likely fare. My point about Lee is that he's not a dominant pitcher in the Koufax or Gibson mode, pitchers I have seen over the course of my advancing years. Knee jerk hostility shouldn't substitute for reasoned analysis. Your response to my post was, as we say in the legal profession, "ad hominem", while my initial post essentially was focused on my perception of Manuel's managing abilities being no greater than Girardi's. This is a matter of opinion, ultimately, but facts do get in the way of opinions, and the last time I checked, the Yankees won this series, and the Phillies lost.
I agree with you to some extent. I was surprised he gave Manuel the managing edge going into the series, as:
* Rollins continued to lead off despite a sub-.300 OBP
* Lidge continued to pitch high leverage situations despite a 7+ ERA, 1.8+ WHIP, and 11 blown saves in the regular season
These two blunders were far more egregious and indicative of flawed reasoning than anything Girardi did, including the Molina/Posada nonsense. Even in that case, Girardi consistently got Posada's bat back in there quickly, which at the very least showed some he had some idea of what each of his guys is capable of.
Girardi makes a lot of little mistakes. Errors in being able to tell his, say, 2nd best RP from his 4th best RP. In worrying more about Burnett's comfort zone than Molina's awful bat.
Manuel's mistakes are mind-blowing: with his team tied in the top of the 9th inning at home, goes to a relief pitcher who had one of the absolute worst seasons of all-time.
In an elimination game (last night), when the Phillies desperately needed to stay close, he goes to Chad Durbin, who walked 47 men in 60 innings. Mr. Durbin is expected to hold things against a team that walks their brains out.
I wonder, as great as Utley was, could the Phillies have lost the World Series without him? There are several guys that Yankees couldn't have won without and Matsui is a fine choice.
That is my main argument for MOST Valuable Player. In 1987, the Cubs could have finished last without Andre Dawson, but the Cardinals couldn't have won without Ozzie Smith (My choice for MVP) or Jack Clark.
Fans, you need to stop pointing to payroll as cause of the Yankees WS win, and Cashman/Steinbrenner as the culprit. a few points:
- Yankees haven't won a WS in 9 straight years prior to this WS win, but each of the last 9 teams they fielded had a staggering payroll; If payroll is the causation, why is it not consistent across the board?
- A salary cap does not create parity, it merely decreases player salaries while increasing ownership profits; anyone who thinks that a salary cap would also cause owners to lower ticket prices should check themselves into a hospital
- As was pointed out earlier, the Steinbrenners are far from the richest owners in baseball, and, in fact, have taken a loss on many of the last 9 seasons.
- The Yankees share a significant portion of their revenue with the league, so do not point to small market conspiracy theories.
- The difference between the Yankees and many of the teams you all are fans of isn't the ability to retain talent and attract FAs, but rather the willingness to.
Instead of blaming Cashman for fielding the best team he can and Steinbrenner for putting winning ahead of profiteering, You should be blaming your GMs for ineffeciently using their available funds, and your owners for pocketing the money, rather than reinvesting it in a winning team (THAT MEANS YOU, MINNESOTA TWINS...RICHEST OWNER IN BASEBALL POCKETED THE ENTIRE REVENUE SHARING STREAM LAST YEAR, RATHER THAN REINVESTING IT).
Quite well put, though I'll add in the addendum that even if you have money you have to spend it wisely and the Yankees have improved in that department.
I agree with the majority of your points here. The one I would argue with is the first. Having a super-high payroll doesn't directly cause victory, as you pointed out, but it sure makes it a heck of a lot easier to win when you can plug any hole you have without worrying about cost.
I would say one of the easiest ways to improve parity right now would be to have salary minimums instead of caps. If a team can't afford the minimum while still making a reasonable profit, you can mess with the profit sharing numbers to an extent to give them more support (after all, NY is clearly a better market than a number of other cities), but if you continue to subsidize teams that suck you're going to allow incompetent management to stick around longer than they should.
The Yanks high payroll doesn't guarantee success, but merely increases the likelihood of it happening. Spending wisely is still paramount, you can't just throw it around like candy and except to win (ask Dan Snyder).
But now, like I posted earlier, they're getting smarter about who they spend their money on. 9 years ago the Yanks were spending money on guys like Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright. You can spend lots of money and still lose every year. But you can't spend a little money and *win* every year.
The Yankees 2009 payroll was almost 70 *million* dollars than the next highest team, coincidentally the Mets who prove the point that anyone can spend lots of money and lose. But you can't win consistently without spending the cash.
The Yanks winning *this* World Series had everything to do with their payroll. They signed the best FA hitter and pitcher on the market to huge contracts, in addition to Burnett. And they have ARod and his contract. I'd love to see BP run a simulation to see where the Yankees would be without ARod, Tex, and CC. Don't even include Burnett. Take those three out and do you think they'd make the playoffs, or win the World Series?
For that matter, put those three players on ANY team, and see what their playoff chances are. Imagine ARod, CC, and Tex in Tampa's lineup, or the Marlins. Or even Pittsburgh.
But guys like ARod, CC, and Tex don't play for teams like Tampa or Florida or Pittsburgh, because Tampa and Florida can't afford to have all three, revenue sharing or no revenue sharing. Players like that use free agency to *get away* from those teams. Those three play for the Yankees for two reasons: money...and a chance to win. But those two reasons feed off each other. Money brings in a talented player, which makes winner more likely, which entices the next player, which makes winning more likely, and so on.
Money brings in talent, no matter what business you're in. Doctors, lawyers, professors, or baseball players. Now, you still have to spend your money wisely, but that's what the Yankees are doing.
Im not saying that other small-market teams can't be more competitive. They certainly can, and some don't. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking that everyone has the same amount of money to play with. This isn't a game of Monopoly. Some teams do have more money than others.
The Yankees and the Red Sox are about to put on a clinic over the next decade on how to spend big bucks for premium talent, surround those stars with good-to-great home grown talent, and avoid spending big bucks on middle-class veterans who aren't worth the money. Once the Mets, Dodgers, and Cubs see those guys and the light bulb turns on, its lights out for the small-market teams.
There is no need for BP to run a simulation and see where the Yankees would be without A-Rod, CC, or Tex. We had a real-life simulation called the 2008 season and that roster even included A-Rod, but not CC, Tex, or Burnett. The result was a good third-place team.
"For that matter, put those three players on ANY team, and see what their playoff chances are. Imagine ARod, CC, and Tex in Tampa's lineup, or the Marlins. Or even Pittsburgh."
Adding CC, Burnett, Tex and ARod to the Pirates gives Pittsburgh +14 wins... or 76 wins. Enough to move them up to 5th in the NL Central.
Adding those four to the Rays give the Rays a margin of +8 wins, moving them to... 3rd place in the AL East. (Too be fair, this is substituting Arod for Longoria, and Evan was 2 wins better on the year)
At the end of the day- you cannot compare the Yankees and Royal or Twins.
The amount of money that the Yanks can spend dwarf the Royals and Twins.
Money is the mothers milk of all business endeavors.
To blame Min or KC for not being successful as NYY because they do not make good decisions or use their resources wisely is silly. And you know it.
How about you and I compete in a contest. You can have $100,000 and I will have $1,000,000. The contest- who can build and furnish a nicer house. The winner gets to keep the house.
No whining about the disparity now... Just make good decisions on sq footage, furniture, fixtures, etc....
Hey, you MIGHT be able to build a better house for 100k than I can for 1 mill, but it is probably about the same chance as KC winning the WS. Slim and none.
I've been mulling over a rule change that states that teams cannot cut or demote guaranteed contracts above a certain threshold in a given year. Independently verified injuries would be the only means to move someone off of the 40.
This would negate the getting over bad decisions bit. Sure, a team could sign 25 $5M players, but they can't simply dump them if they don't pan out.
Thoughts?
You are missing the point; It's not that other teams just aren't managing their resources properly, in many cases they aren't even EMPLOYING their resources, and instead are pocketing them. A better analogy would be what if I had 2500 and you had 1500 to start in monopoly, and received 100 dollars from me per turn. But while i shelled out the big money for big properties, you consistently passed on them, choosing to slip a C-note into your own pocket everyturn, and even sold properties you owned before building hotels on them and pocketed the gain.
Does anyone have the time to look up what the payroll for the yankees is compared to post-revenue sharing expense revenue, and compare that to the twins payroll compared to post-revenue sharing revenue?
FYI, Player expenses are covered by 63% of Revenue (net of Revnue sharing expense) by the Yankees, whereas just 50% for the twins for 2008. Additionally, the Yankees operated at 3 million dollar of operating loss for the year, whereas the twins operated at almost 27 million dollar of operating income. Check out the marlins numbers, their payroll hasn't exceeded their revenue-sharing income in years.
Regarding Girardi, I'll admit having a soft spot for him since he's an ex-Cub and all but he did do a good job balancing the three man rotation and keeping Rivera healthy while getting a lot of use out of him. He also kept a short leash, in my opion, on Pettite and CC and didnt leave either in too long to the point it was obvious they were gassed *nudges Dusty*
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
On the cap issue....I say bring it on. BUT - you'd have to have a salary floor as well to stymie the best efforts of the Twins. I'd go with a $75 million floor and $175 millon cap. That would leave plenty of room to spend extravagantly and make the Twins, Royals, Pirates, et. al. pony up and reinvest the money they get from the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Dodgers and Angels.
And so then the Yankees take that 30 million dollars they can't spend on "payroll" (with a 175 million dollar cap) and use it to go way, way over-slot in the draft, or use it to pick up every notable international free-agent, or use it to sign the smartest guys around to work in the front office.
A salary cap in the NFL allows small market teams like Indianapolis and Pittsburgh to be among the most competitive. Without a salary cap could the Colts have afforded to keep Peyton Manning for his entire career? The Steelers have no fear of losing Big Ben to the highest bidder.
A salary cap in the NBA allows a small market team like San Antonio to remain competitive. It allows a team like Cleveland a reasonable chance to keep LeBron James. The Indians had no chance to resign Sabathia, but the Cavs have a chance to keep LeBron.
A salary cap penalizes NFL and NBA teams that make bad decisions (see Knicks, Redskins) regardless of how much many they can spend. It can lead to big markets having teams that are among the worst.
The lack of a salary cap keeps bad decisions from penalizing MLB teams equally. The Yankees and Red Sox can recover from bad decisions and remain competitive just about every year. Most teams can't.
Sure different teams win the World Series just about every year - but they are never small market teams (like the Colts, Steelers or Spurs) and big market teams rarely have 95 or 100 loss seasons (like the Pirates and Royals).
"A salary cap in the NFL allows small market teams like Indianapolis and Pittsburgh to be among the most competitive. Without a salary cap could the Colts have afforded to keep Peyton Manning for his entire career? The Steelers have no fear of losing Big Ben to the highest bidder."
I'd argue that it's not the Salary Cap but rather the lack of guaranteed contracts that help NFL teams. The Colts will pay Edgerin James right up until the point he is no longer of value to the team, and then release him because there's no penalty not to. Whatever salary cap penalty there is, is insignificant on the short & long term.
"A salary cap in the NBA allows a small market team like San Antonio to remain competitive. It allows a team like Cleveland a reasonable chance to keep LeBron James. The Indians had no chance to resign Sabathia, but the Cavs have a chance to keep LeBron."
San Antonio remains competitive because they use their roster more effectively than any team in the NBA. It's built around a Superstar player (David Robinson, then Tim Duncan), a supporting star/superstar player(s) (Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobli), and 9-10 players who know their role and execute accordingly (Robert Horry, Bruce Bowen, Stephen Jackson, etc). The Spurs are not afraid to draft European players and let them develop and mature before coming to the states. This sounds like "Good management" rather than "NBA Salary Cap parity".
The Cavs can offer LeBron James $30MM and 1 year more in salary than any other team in the NBA, no matter their salary cap position. It's never cut and dry, but it seems to me there are other issues than the Salary Cap and player earnings at stake here for LeBron.
"A salary cap penalizes NFL and NBA teams that make bad decisions (see Knicks, Redskins) regardless of how much many they can spend. It can lead to big markets having teams that are among the worst."
Penalizes teams far more in the NBA than the lack of a salary cap does in MLB actually. It is also the cause for things like contracts of players not playing in the league being traded (Keith Van Horn, Theo Ratliff, etc). But you know what penalizes teams more than the salary cap? Losing. Losing leads to lower attendance, lower revenue from advertising, lower chances of being on national broadcasts, etc.
"The lack of a salary cap keeps bad decisions from penalizing MLB teams equally. The Yankees and Red Sox can recover from bad decisions and remain competitive just about every year. Most teams can't. "
Actually, this part I don't entirely disagree with. Having a larger revenue stream allows the Yanks and Sawx to take different risks & chances and absorb whatever losses come from them much easier.
"Sure different teams win the World Series just about every year - but they are never small market teams (like the Colts, Steelers or Spurs) and big market teams rarely have 95 or 100 loss seasons (like the Pirates and Royals)."
See above for the market breakdowns. Of course, it does fail to point out that the Patriots, Lakers and Pistons have been to a disproportionate (may not be the word I'm looking for) number of their leagues championship games as well.
San Antonio is the 7th largest city in the United States. Indianapolis is the 14th.
Detroit is the 11th.
Green Bay is way down past the 100 mark.
The Clippers play in LA, which is the second largest city in the country.
City is the 40th largest metro area.
I guess I don't quite understand your argument - you talk about the Knicks as being an example of how money doesn't mean anything, but last year the Knicks paid Stephon Marbury 20+ million dollars to do nothing. And they lost a lot. Penny Hardaway kept getting traded and traded, despite no team valuing him and no team wanting to play him - is that what you'd like to see baseball turn into? A business in which teams just recycle bad contracts and stash guys on the bench and pay them tens of millions of dollars to do so?
I understand this notion that "small-market" teams can't afford mistakes is an interesting memem, but the Padres spent 15 million dollars this year on Chris Young, Brian Giles, and 17 at-bats of Cliff Floyd. The Royals spent 20 million dollars on Jose Guillen, Kyle Farnsworth and Mike Jacobs. Exclude Mariano Rivera, and the Royals actually spent MORE on their bullpen than the Royals did. Money is important, sure, but management is important too. And a "small market" team like the Royals is manged badly.
Sorry about the typos, new computer, but the above should read "Kansas City is the 40th largest metro area" and "exclude Mariano Rivera, and the Royals actually spent MORE on their bullpen than the Yankees."
If you are complaining about the money the Yankees spend, I hope that you are intellectually consistent and support higher taxes for the wealthy & businesses, as well as national health care. Lots of hypocrisy abounds here as many chant "the Yankees have too much money" but they don't feel that way when asked to help other humans.
it cuts both ways- if you are for unlimited Yanks spending, you are against min. wages, taxes, social programs, etc...
Baseball is a game. The teams should start on an equal footing. Money is the equalizer.
Why does Milton Bradley Games tell Monopoly Players that all participants start with the same $2,500? Why not just let the first guy to show up at the board take a couple of fistfulls and allow the last few guys to the board fight over the last few 5 and 10 dollar bills.
Bottom line- mlb economic structure is screwed up. It is complicated- there is no easy fix. I don't pretend to have all the answers. But, you cannot deny it.
JUST TO BE CLEAR- my last post where I suggested that if you are for NYY unlimited spending you are against min. wages, all taxes, etc.. was SARCASM. It was an attempt to use absurdity to respond to an absurd statement.
One's opinions on an economic structure and rules of MLB have nothing to do with political beliefs, in my opinion.
"Why does Milton Bradley Games tell Monopoly Players that all participants start with the same $2,500? Why not just let the first guy to show up at the board take a couple of fistfulls and allow the last few guys to the board fight over the last few 5 and 10 dollar bills."
But even the Monopoly Analogy has it's flaws. The board itself rewards further properties, and the owners of those properties, making the Yankees Park Place and Boardwalk, the Royals Belmont and Connecticut.
If the starting principals are viewed as National and MLB overall TV & Etc Revenue, and the rent is viewed as what their local revenues bring in, anyway.
Are people _still_ talking about this? Where were all the big market/small market comparisons when the Rays lost to the Phillies last year? Or the Rockies lost to Boston the year before?
Why is everyone picking on the Yankees in particular, or trying to come up with economic models based on board games or movie theaters when we can't even figure out what a consistent strike zone is?
The Yankees won, they're not a lesser team or have lesser fans because their team won, so let them enjoy it.
133 comments have been left for this post.
Yeah, I'm thrilled. Look at all that money to go "all-in." Hey, what do you know, it worked for once. Yeah, Go Yankees!