No, I'm a Philly fan. I root for Philly teams.
If the Marlins had won the division the payroll difference is why I would have been that much more frustrated with my team. It's also why the Yanks fans should have been REALLY embarrassed in 2003.
Anyone who can look another individual in the eye and say the Yankees would have had the exact same success if the playing field had always been level needs to be locked in an institution.
VF Runner wrote:
Anyone who can look another individual in the eye and say the Yankees would have had the exact same success if the playing field had always been level needs to be locked in an institution.
Of course not, but the same goes for the Phillies, the Red Sox, etc. The Marlins are an anomaly to be sure.
wondering why wrote:
What advantage do the Yankees have? They have the same opportunity to sell tickets and merchandise, put together a cable network and sell advertising, etc., as every other team. They're just better at it.[
The Yankees' fans support the team. The team, unlike many others, invests this revenue in the on-field product. The fans respond by continuing and increasing their support. And the cycle continues. Successful businesses improve their product to drive revenues. And, in MLB, they're rewarded for their success by getting to put luxury-tax money in the pockets of their less-motivated competitors.
They have the advantage of money., of course.
The yankees aren't rich because they win. They win because they are rich. They are rich because they've been in the biggest media market in the country for a hundred years.
The only thing that has kept them from winning the last 7 world series has been the fact that their overpaid superstars normally don't show up in the post season. That and a hell of a lot more motivation from those "less motivated competitors"
Eagles time - I was referring to the beginning of the football season which coincides with the end of the baseball season. If the Phillies aren't in the hunt then I tend to really just focus on the Eagles.
When the Phillies are a contender in September I will learn the team a litle better.
The first 100 games of the baseball season are just a bit too much for me to follow but I can focus on every one of the 16 games that the Eagles play.
Everything is great now.
Sunday afternoon - Eagles/Giants
Sunday evening - Phillies/Yankees
listen to you whiners wrote:
They have the advantage of money., of course.
The yankees aren't rich because they win. They win because they are rich. They are rich because they've been in the biggest media market in the country for a hundred years.
The only thing that has kept them from winning the last 7 world series has been the fact that their overpaid superstars normally don't show up in the post season. That and a hell of a lot more motivation from those "less motivated competitors"
Then what kept Chicago and LA from dominating when the Yankees didn't?
How did the Yankees win before radio and TV played such a big role? In fact, in the era of big media deals, the Yankees have fared significantly worse. Why didn't Atlanta and the Cubs dominate when they had the only major network deals?
Wendell Gee wrote:
Then what kept Chicago and LA from dominating when the Yankees didn't?
How did the Yankees win before radio and TV played such a big role?
Newspapers and the biggest city in the country
In fact, in the era of big media deals, the Yankees have fared significantly worse. Why didn't Atlanta and the Cubs dominate when they had the only major network deals?
Clearly money can't do everything or we wouldn't all have A-Rod to make fun of (hey look, he's FINALLY doing something in the post season this year!). But if you are going to try to deny the effect of money you just sound like a fool. There's a very good reason that the Red Sox and the Yankees and a few other teams are in the mix year after year: Money.
Obviously if you have fools spending the money or fools coaching the "talent" or simply overpaid talent it can all fall apart (see also: "Mets"). And obviously if you have great talent but little money, you can have a couple of great years but it's not going to last.
Money talks louder than everything else. Give the Yankees or the RedSox the payroll of the Phillies and they might have a good year or two every couple of decades too. Tht's about it. More likely, they'll be like the Brewers or the Pirates.
This is why football is the infinitely superior sport these days. The people who run the sport actually get it. They understand the inherent advantage big market teams have and spread the money around. So in any given year, ANY given team can contend. Not the case in baseball.
^^^^^couldn't have said any better than that. Finally, a good reasoning behind the money issue. Talent alone does well for a few years, until you lose those players to the teams with the big money (Yankees, Red Seox, Cubs, etc.)
That is how the yankees are good year in and year out. Money keeps the good players around. They have that money from a lifetime of wins, which came from a lifetime of good players, who are drawn to the team by the tons of money the team started with - the sole reason for starting New York city way back in the day was to make money (look it up), you think the team started on its own and worked its way up?
The flip side of baseball's payroll problem is you can't make teams spend money on players. The Yankees and Boston routinely lose money on their teams which they typically recoup thanks their TV networks. Florida on the other hand makes money every year. When you get 30 million in profit sharing, but only spend 15 on player salary, something is wrong.
sum kid wrote:
The flip side of baseball's payroll problem is you can't make teams spend money on players. The Yankees and Boston routinely lose money on their teams which they typically recoup thanks their TV networks. Florida on the other hand makes money every year. When you get 30 million in profit sharing, but only spend 15 on player salary, something is wrong.
They Yankees and Red Sox don't lose money. They make a ton of money every year. That's how they are able to spend so much.
Oh wait, my bad. I missed the thing about it being due to TV networks.
The thing I love about these Phillies is that the team's core came from within the system. The major acquisitions over the last few years--Lee, Ibanez, Lidge--are far outnumbered by home grown talent. While there were much smaller acquisitions (Blanton, Feliz, Pedro, Moyer, Eyre), the Phillies seem less inclined to build a team by buying the big name players, as the Yankees do every offseason. While both teams spend a lot, the Phils spend on their guys.
Newspapers? And they were paying the Yankees how? Remember, also, that NY was supporting up to 3 teams while other large cities had 1.
When did I deny the effect of money? In fact, I clearly stated it earlier.
NFL? Seriously? Parity there is a lie. You do know more teams have won the WS than the Super Bowl in the last decade, right? They try to spread it around, but it doesn't really work. Why? I have no idea, to be honest.
You talk about it like the Phillies are not a high paid team but that's just ridiculous. When was Philly last below the median?
blahblahblah wrote:
The thing I love about these Phillies is that the team's core came from within the system. The major acquisitions over the last few years--Lee, Ibanez, Lidge--are far outnumbered by home grown talent. While there were much smaller acquisitions (Blanton, Feliz, Pedro, Moyer, Eyre), the Phillies seem less inclined to build a team by buying the big name players, as the Yankees do every offseason. While both teams spend a lot, the Phils spend on their guys.
Well, your fairy tale is nice, but it doesn't really hold up. Here are the WS starters for each team (not listing DH):
Catchers:
both came up with team
IF:
phillies 3/4
yankees 2/4
OF:
phillies 0/3
yankees 1/3 (2/3 if they start matsui)
top 3 starters:
phillies 1/3
yankees 1/3
closer:
phillies 0/1
yankees 1/1
c
Wendell Gee wrote:
Ha wrote:Two of the most obnoxious fan bases in all of baseball.
Didn't take long for this thread to prove you right. I'm embarrassed to be a fan of one of these teams.
Really, the thread wouldn't become like this if were other teams?
I feel Philadelphia fans are extremely passionate. Its the city of brotherly love, were family with our team, and we never let them forget it, we let you know when your good and they let you know when you suck ass. They will stop but nothing to give their team a home field edge. This includes drunk shenanigans and battery throwing.
New York, the City. Just the phrase "the City" makes them feel like they are superior to all. New York fans have an sense of entitlement to everything. They feel like the league should just bend over and grab their ankles because they are New York.
The passion behind either fan base as obnoxious, you just do not know because your in a bad sports town. New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago those are sports towns and their fans are quite similar but each have unique flare.
that being said...
Philadelphia in SIX, Cliff has been just as amazing, Pedro good should have won that game. In the past we have handled CC before as well as the Yankees more recently. Our hitting line is like an AL squad. When you move Ibanez from the feild to the DH and Ben Francisco in the outfield makes us better defensively. Not taking anything away from Raul. At home in the playoffs the Phils have been 10-3. Over the last two season they have taken at least one at the other stadium in each series. Also with the questions about the middle inning relief for the Yankees and the alrite management of the last couple of games makes us have a bit of edge in middle relief. What does give me nightmares is closing a game, Brad Lidge scares me. But if our bats are alive we have a more than decent chance to take this thing in SIX.
WG wrote:
Newspapers? And they were paying the Yankees how? Remember, also, that NY was supporting up to 3 teams while other large cities had 1.
They weren't. They were publicizing the team the to the largest market (by far) in the country. The fact that they could support 3 teams is the evidence of that. But you can't compare so much anyway because before Curt Flood, it was tough to to have the disparities you do now
NFL? Seriously? Parity there is a lie. You do know more teams have won the WS than the Super Bowl in the last decade, right? They try to spread it around, but it doesn't really work. Why? I have no idea, to be honest.
It is not a lie at all. They try to spread it around and it DOES work. The mark of parity is not merely who wins the most titles. It is how many different teams CONTEND. I can turn it back on you and ask how many different teams have PLAYED for the championship in the past 10 years in each league? Football wins there. In football, the division races are not the same story year after year the way they are in baseball.
But there's a better way to illustrate it very fact that a small market team like the Steelers can succeed with regularity in the NFL ought to be proof enough.
Where does that happen in baseball? The exact same city (Pittsburgh) has a baseball team that has not had a winning season for 20 years.
WG wrote:
Well, your fairy tale is nice, but it doesn't really hold up. Here are the WS starters for each team (not listing DH):
Catchers:
both came up with team
IF:
phillies 3/4
yankees 2/4
OF:
phillies 0/3
yankees 1/3 (2/3 if they start matsui)
top 3 starters:
phillies 1/3
yankees 1/3
closer:
phillies 0/1
yankees 1/1
I was mostly noting the lack of major acquisitions on the part of the Phils and the fact that most of the team is either from the system, or were not MAJOR signings. Neither Victorino (who only played a few major league games before coming to Philly), nor Werth were major signings--they developed once they got here. Try to explain to me how the Phillies have developed their team through big name signings more than the Yankees. You can't.
Also Matsui had a stellar career in Japan (9-time all-star I think). You can't tell me he came up with the Yankees.
blahblahblah wrote:
Also Matsui had a stellar career in Japan (9-time all-star I think). You can't tell me he came up with the Yankees.
Good point, that's why I left him out.
The same computer models that correctly predicted:
NC- 2009 NCAA Champs
Detroit- 2009 NHL Champs
LA - 2009 NBA Champs
Pittsburgh- 2009 NFL Champs
predicts that New York will be MLB Champs in 6 games.
I'm not a betting man, but if I was I would be sure to use this site.
Here's the breakdown of the score for all six games and the link:
http://www.whatifsports.com/beyondtheboxscore/default.asp?article=2009WorldSeries>1=39002
The Yankees suck, the only reason they made it this far is luck. The American league this year was weak. I\'m not saying the NL was any better, but I do believe that the Phillies will win.
Pittsburgh is a great example. The Pirates get more money from revenue sharing than they spend on player salaries. So you want to give them more money? Guess where that will end up? In the owner's pockets. They talk about paying down debt and building baseball academies and all that other stuff, but in the end they don't use the money they get to put a better product on the field so why give them more? Some ownerships care about putting a good team on the field and understand that they'll eventually make money that way. Other ownerships see free money and just stick it in their pockets.