Yankees Cry Foul

[Johnny99]

This post has been deleted because it did not follow the forum rules.

[Melo]

Originally Posted by Y0DA55

What were the circumstances regarding this trade? Why did the Blue Jays think that this was a good trade? Why did they do it?

I don't remember the exact circumstances but I believe Clemens wanted out of Toronto.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Johnny99

I just don't believe that its healthy for a sport to have a built in advantage.

Why? I think it's healthy for a sport to have a built in advantage. Various sports leagues around the world are proving it all over history, and considering this fact:

In WWE, where it's mostly scripted, you obviously see some wrestlers getting built in advantage. Why is that? Because that draws more fans.

In sports, it's very reasonable to let teams in larger cities to have some kind of advantage. Just like malls in larger cities are bigger.

[Splitter24]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

However, your conception of the "good old fashioned" Yankee dynasty is horribly wrong.

Look up how they acquired Clete Boyer, for one.

At least read a book or two before you start spouting off asinine cliche' statements about the good ole' days.

Uhh... I hate to disagree with you. But are you implying that the Yankees dynasty was a result of their pilfering of the KC Athletic juggernaut? Maris, Boyer, Cerv and a couple of middling pitchers does not constitute the Yankee dynasty of the period.

What about Mantle, Ford, Berra, Howard, Skowron, McDougald, Blanchard, Tresh, Stafford, Bouton, et al.?

Of course the acquisition of those A's players was underhanded. But they weren't the reason why they won.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Johnny99

What a great example. Clete Boyer played a total of 124 games over three seasons with KC, during which he hit .220.

Clete Boyer was a bonus baby. Do you know what a bonus baby was in baseball? I'm going to assume no.

In the mid-50's there was a rule that if a player recieved a bonus higher than a certain amount, then he was to remain on the ML roster for 2 years. This was instituted to bring more competitive balance to the league. Here's a paragraph about how the Yankees used their good ole' fashioned hard work (read: loophole in the system) to get the guy they wanted!

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...-bonus-babies/
"On May 31, 1955, the Kansas City Athletics signed Clete Boyer to a Bonus Baby contract, and then had the young infielder spend his two years making typically meager Bonus Baby contributions from the bench. Then on June 4, 1957, just days past the point when they could finally send Boyer to the minors for seasoning, they sent him to the New York Yankees as the "player to be named later," completing a big trade from the previous winter. The rest of the American League, already suspicious of the cozy relationship between the A's and Yankees, howled in protest, claiming that acquiring Boyer at this point essentially amounted to the Yankees having used the Athletics' roster to hold their own Bonus Baby. The cries of foul fell on deaf ears, and the deal was allowed by the league."

And another: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...-strikes-back/

"In 1955, the Yankees coveted a young high school infielder named Clete Boyer. However they already had two “bonus babies” on the roster in Frank Leja and Tommy Carroll—both, like Boyer, were infielders. So Weiss instructed his Kansas City counterpart Parke Carroll—who’d worked for Weiss for about 20 years—to draft Boyer, who was later obligingly dealt to the Yankees after his “bonus baby” eligibility was over."

Now notice how bad he played for the hapless A's for those couple years. Also notice how he didn't play at all during the 1958 season. He HAD to stay on that roster. He didn't belong in the majors at that point so the poor performance that "led" to his trade is irrelevant.

He was then traded to the Yankees, where he continued a stellar career that finished with a .242 lifetime batting average.

A) Nobody's claiming Boyer was a great hitter. Although, he was one of the greatest fielding 3B of all time who played in the shadow of probably the greatest.
B) Not putting numbers into context when you're dealing with the period that you're dealing with makes you look incredibly ignorant. Read a book to find out why!

His best year was 1967, when he hit 26 home runs. For Atlanta.

Well, his best year was actually '62, but that's another debate for another day.

The inappropriateness of your example is exceeded only by your ignorance.

Looks like you got me there!!! I don't know **** about baseball or baseball history as is proven by this debate!!!1

And your suggestion to read a book is a sign of your immaturity. Or maybe you're just an a******.

And your posts are a sign of your reluctance to read a book. Or maybe I'm just an *******.

Oh, and a final point? I'm interested to know if it was it hard work and good ole' fashioned elbow grease that got the Yanks to come up with the $25,000 (a HUGE sum of money in 1934, especially in baseball terms) to pay the San Francisco Seals for Joe Dimaggio's contract in 1934. Whaddya think Johnny?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Splitter24

Uhh... I hate to disagree with you. But are you implying that the Yankees dynasty was a result of their pilfering of the KC Athletic juggernaut? Maris, Boyer, Cerv and a couple of middling pitchers does not constitute the Yankee dynasty of the period.

What about Mantle, Ford, Berra, Howard, Skowron, McDougald, Blanchard, Tresh, Stafford, Bouton, et al.?

Of course the acquisition of those A's players was underhanded. But they weren't the reason why they won.

Those were the days without draft, when teams would bid on players. So of course richer teams got advantage.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Splitter24

Uhh... I hate to disagree with you. But are you implying that the Yankees dynasty was a result of their pilfering of the KC Athletic juggernaut? Maris, Boyer, Cerv and a couple of middling pitchers does not constitute the Yankee dynasty of the period.

No sir... I'm just trying to relay to our friend Johnny a decent story that illustrates the leverage the Yankees have had throughout history.

My underlying point with the Boyer story is that the Yankees advantage throughout history isn't completely because of "hard work" and the competitive advantage they have as a wealthy organization isn't some recent phenomenon.

Agree now?

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Johnny99

Your argument seems to be that, because those old Yankee teams had success, therefore it must mean there was a built in advantage for big market teams. How many championships did Boston win in those years?

Boston teams won nine pennants from 1900 to 1975 (what I consider to be the real beginning of the free agency era). They've won two since then.

Chicago?

15 pennants before free agency, zero after.

Philadelphia?

10 before, 3 after.

How much success have the Angels had until recently?

They've only been around since 1961, and have won only on pennant in their history. That's not much to judge on one way or the other.

Here's a question for you -- how often did a small market team win the World Series prior to the free agency era? How often afterwards? That should tell you what you need to know about the effect free agency and escalating payrolls has had on the competitive balance of baseball.

[mlyons]

dola

Originally Posted by Y0DA55

What were the circumstances regarding this trade? Why did the Blue Jays think that this was a good trade? Why did they do it?

I actually addressed this very question in a post that has now disappeared into limbo. To reiterate: this trade basically seemed like an equal value trade at the time. Clemens was obviously considered better than David Wells, but not nearly to the same degree that he is today in hindsight. Remember that Wells was coming off a career year for the Yankees, with some huge postseason wins. The Blue Jays also got Graeme Lloyd, who had been the best lefty reliever in the league the previous season, and Homer Bush, who at the time was considered a pretty good prospect.

In retrospect, it seems like an awful trade for the Blue Jays, since Lloyd's career imploded, Bush turned out to be a bust, and Wells ended up going back to the Yankees anyway. At the time, though, I actually thought the Blue Jays had gotten the better end of the deal -- I never would have expected that Clemens would have the kind of career he's had after the age of 35.

[Melo]

Originally Posted by mlyons

dolaI actually addressed this very question in a post that has now disappeared into limbo. To reiterate: this trade basically seemed like an equal value trade at the time. Clemens was obviously considered better than David Wells, but not nearly to the same degree that he is today in hindsight. Remember that Wells was coming off a career year for the Yankees, with some huge postseason wins. The Blue Jays also got Graeme Lloyd, who had been the best lefty reliever in the league the previous season, and Homer Bush, who at the time was considered a pretty good prospect.

In retrospect, it seems like an awful trade for the Blue Jays, since Lloyd's career imploded, Bush turned out to be a bust, and Wells ended up going back to the Yankees anyway. At the time, though, I actually thought the Blue Jays had gotten the better end of the deal -- I never would have expected that Clemens would have the kind of career he's had after the age of 35.

Yeah and the Red Sox thought he was washed up after 3 sub par seasons. Then Clemens won back to back Cy Young awards in Toronto in his only two seasons there.

[QuestGAV]

I don't think it's the fact that the Yankees have the highest payroll that makes the system in baseball today less balanced. Someone's always got to have the highest payroll. It's the magnitude of the difference between not just the Yankees and the Red Sox (~30%?), but between the Yankees and the lower half of baseball (~300+%?). 30% is pretty significant, but when you start talking about multiplication? That's when something's got to give.

That being said, the money's got to be spent right, and like Luis and a few others in the thread I think the Yankees are going to be in increasing amounts of trouble over the next few years as they get further away from the mentality that developed the Jeter/Bernie/Rivera/Posada core.

[Splitter24]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

No sir... I'm just trying to relay to our friend Johnny a decent story that illustrates the leverage the Yankees have had throughout history.

My underlying point with the Boyer story is that the Yankees advantage throughout history isn't completely because of "hard work" and the competitive advantage they have as a wealthy organization isn't some recent phenomenon.

Agree now?

Not to defend Johnny99, but he did say that the old Yankees dynasty were for the most part because of hard work, etc.

I'll give you the KC A's thing. That was pretty deplorable. But the majority of the Yankees stars that propelled them to championships were home grown talent. You said that the Yankees spent a lot of money on Joe D. Sure they did. But $25,000 for a young prospect from the PCL wasn't unheard of at the time. The Sox spent a lot of money on Teddy Ballgame. Hell, they paid almost twice as much for Dom DiMaggio as the Yanks did for his big brother. You can make this argument for just about any player up through the end of 30's. Organizations purchased hot prospects from the PCL, IL and AA.

Did the Yanks have a lot of $$ in the 50's? Of course they did. They utilized it better than other teams. After Branch Rickey's Cardinals, they organized the best farm system of the era with the Newark Bears, Kansas City Blues, Kansas City Athletics... oops. Scratch that last one.

The parallels between the classic Yankees teams and the 95-01 Yanks is very strong. Big time home grown talent mixed with key acquisitions from outside the organization ='d championships.

It used to be more hard work than money. Over the last few years, it's been mostly money.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Melo

Yeah and the Red Sox thought he was washed up after 3 sub par seasons. Then Clemens won back to back Cy Young awards in Toronto in his only two seasons there.

It's pretty much unprecedented the way he's defied the aging process. I can't really fault any of the teams that have let him go over the course of his career. How could anyone have possibly expected his career to go the way it has?

[Melo]

Originally Posted by mlyons

It's pretty much unprecedented the way he's defied the aging process. I can't really fault any of the teams that have let him go over the course of his career. How could anyone have possibly expected his career to go the way it has?

I agree. Look at his numbers with the Sox before he left. His last four seasons looked like the end of the road. Still, he signed with Toronto for more money per season than he had ever been paid by the Sox.

[Luis_Rivera]

The only problem I have with the "homegrown" argument is that money is what gave the Yanks the ability to purchase that homegrown talent. As Skip stated, this is prior to the draft when teams would outbid each other for their minor leaguers.

Now, while I'm saying that they're not "completely" hard work, I'm not saying that it wasn't there. The Yankees have been a well-run organization throughout most of their history. The Red Sox had plenty of money but went nowhere because there were a million things wrong with their front office (don't get me started) as I'm sure you are well aware of.

I'll reiterate: I don't believe an organization can be successful unless they are well run and have a competant front office. The Yankees are the epitome of a successful organization. Of course I believe they were well run and there was a lot of work put into building those dynasties.

This whole speil I went on was inspired by Johnny not acknowledging that the competitive advantage was there prior to the free agency era. If you read my posts, you'll see that we're probably in agreement for the most part. I was just accentuating the point that while the front office was run extremely well, there was a clear competitive advantage that the Yankees had throughout their history... greater than they have today.

I will, however do a little research on those contracts purchased from the PCL, etc... in the 30's. Thanks for making that point.

[Splitter24]

Yeah. I agree with most of what you're saying. The Yankees have had an advantage throughout history. A lot of it hard work and intelligence, but a lot of it through financial resources.

When you go and look up contract purchases from the era in question, you won't find that the Yankees did particularly better than anyone else when it came to signing well known prospects. What they were really good at is scouring the country for lesser-known players who could really play. DiMaggio put up huge numbers in the PCL, so everybody knew about him. But I'm not sure $25,000 was all that much considering the Yanks bought Lefty Gomez five years earlier for $35,000.

But players like Keller, Henrich, Gordon, Rizzuto, Stirweiss... everybody had a crack at them. But the Yankees scouted them all and brought them through their system.

I've got to stop talking about the Yanks now.

How 'bout them Bruins?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Splitter24

Yeah. I agree with most of what you're saying. The Yankees have had an advantage throughout history. A lot of it hard work and intelligence, but a lot of it through financial resources.

When you go and look up contract purchases from the era in question, you won't find that the Yankees did particularly better than anyone else when it came to signing well known prospects. What they were really good at is scouring the country for lesser-known players who could really play. DiMaggio put up huge numbers in the PCL, so everybody knew about him. But I'm not sure $25,000 was all that much considering the Yanks bought Lefty Gomez five years earlier for $35,000.

But players like Keller, Henrich, Gordon, Rizzuto, Stirweiss... everybody had a crack at them. But the Yankees scouted them all and brought them through their system.

I've got to stop talking about the Yanks now.

How 'bout them Bruins?

And being able to scout more is yet another advantage of rich teams!

[SWardle]

For the record, I can't stand the Yankees but it has very little to do with them spending money etc... It has more to do with them being so dominant in the 90's they rose up to be this Darth Vader-esque presence in baseball. A team I just wanted to see lose because I was tired of seeing them win.

But those that hate them because Steinbrenner uses what he has? Pffft. I wish _every_ owner was like him. Pour every dime back into your team and go for titles. He doesn't operate the team for a fat bottom line he operates them geared towards rings and I, for one, have to respect that.

We could discuss several teams but let's just take a look at a typical "small market" team of the modern era. I think everyone here can realize that the Reds have far more money than they utilize (much like most "small market" teams) but their ownership won't take their grubby little hands off of it to go out and be competitive. They want to be cheap and in the end, field a triple A team at the end of every season.

So I can't see why you'd bash a team for doing what it takes to win. If anything we should be bashing the Dodgers, Reds, Mets etc... for being too stupid or too greedy to spend money (at all or wisely) and do what it takes to win. I can't fault an owner that's willing to do whatever it takes to bring his team and fans a ring. I can fault an owner that isn't willing to do that, though.

Steve-O

[Melo]

Umm, no other teams have revenues as high as the Yankees. Do you think small market teams have local covergae like the Yankees do? The Yankees have their own network for crying out loud. Do the Reds even have a local contract that has games on daily? Does Cincinnatti have the same population to draw from as the NY Metro area?

I see your point about putting everything back into the franchise but if the Reds tried to operate with a $215M payroll they'd be out of business after the first year whether they won a championship or not.

[QuestGAV]

I don't fault Steinbrenner for anything other than being a jerk. It's not his fault he has and spends the revenues, that's a systemic problem.