|
Originally Posted by CommishJoe
I'm impressed. I had you on ignore because most of your posts weren't worth reading. However, this one you did pretty well with. Unfortunately, it is an old argument.
MIL, PIT, TB and KC are all examples of mis-management. The teams could have fielded a better team, but didn't. Probably because they wanted to pocket the cash. For example, the Twins never spent money on their payroll until Pohlad finally realized he could make more money if he fielded a winner. Once he started re-signing some of his key players, and putting role players around them, they started winning. Fancy that.
The real comparison is teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Cubs, Braves, Angels, Dodgers, Mets, Orioles who all have VERY deep pockets. However, it doesn't matter how much you spend, it's HOW you spend it. The Yankee teams of the late 90s were built right. No true super-stars, but together they made one hell of a team. 2002 Angels were built the same way and they reminded me a lot of those Yankees teams. Now, Steinbrenner is back to his old ways of signing names past their primes. If it wasn't for Cashman and some "under the radar" signings, this team would have sunk out of contention a long time ago.
The figure $200m isn't a magic figure that automatically equates to wins. Just like when the Dodgers, Orioles and Mets all went out and spent tons of money only to wind up crapping out. Just because you have the money to spend doesn't guarantee anything.
Also, let me ask you a couple of questions.
Would Steinbrenner be better if he took the money he's making off the Yankees and pocketed it instead of spending it on trying to field a winner?
Why, when the Red Sox, Angels, Mets or some other big market team signs a player, it's a great signing. But, when the Yankees sign someone, it's bad for baseball and they are "buying their team again"?
Why is it that the Red Sox can win the World Series with highest payroll of anyone in history, and they are celebrated, while the Yankees win with a high payroll, but relatively close to everyone else (late 90s) are just bought teams and they didn't earn anything?
These are the double standards I was talking about. I'm not defending this current team. I LOVED the teams of the late 90s. Those teams were built right. This team is a collection of superstars and over the hill "names". However, even with the $200m spent on all of that, they wouldn't be anywhere close to where they are today without Cano, Wang, Small and Chacon.
|