Quote:

rufusTfirefly said:
200 Million buys ya...A trouncing by the Angels in the playoffs!

Well worth the investment!



heh.

but... money... isn't the r0x0rz??

every year the yankees win, the whine is "they bought the victory" and every year the yankees lose, the whine is "looks like your precious money didn't help." seems very convenient to have both sides of your ass covered in an argument. either the 'bankees' are wasting money or they're exploiting it -- arguing both is retarded.

Quote:

big_pimp_tim said:
200 million may not buy the championship, but it does buy an unfair advantage from the get go.



i do think that money gives opportunities. thus, more money teams, like the yankees, have more opportunities, like looking at 4 players at once. thats a given. but i do not feel opportunities are necessarily equal to advantages.

for example, as rufie pointed out above, and joseph madre in another thread, the 2005 yankees dropped 200 million on ... bad opportunities. so thats not spending 200 million on an easy advantage, thats losing 200 million on a losing season.

and it doesn't really matter how rich you are, if you're losing 200 million a year, no one should be calling that an advantage.

Quote:

big_pimp_tim said:
salary cap is needed.



where do they work?

in the salary-cap-enhanced NBA, for example, you have teams that are annually invincible and teams that are annually awful. in the NFL, if big cities want to break the cap, they do. you just pay a fine... which the richer teams would be able to afford, anyway.

the current MLB "cap" is weird, but its not like its ineffective. if you break the cap, you spend extra money funding teams well below, which is a pretty sensical move.

the big difference between the sports, and why baseball always looks so glaringly awful, is the salary explosion over the past few years. there are many players making 10 million+, with the average player salary quickly approaching 3 million. just a bit over ten years ago, that was damn close to the top -- i think in 93/94, mattingly was the highest paid player in baseball for a bit, at 5 mil.

"minimum wage" is damn near half a million. that means the player on your team who you only see on the field once in 162 games is making 10-20 times the average salary of any fan in attendance.

so, to me, its much more a player/union issue than a team one.

giant picture