Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Report-Torre-rips-A-Rod-and-Steinbrenner-in-n;_ylt=At2TZfz5aXv5YEjuDYs4iIA5nYcB?urn=mlb,136637

---

Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:51 pm EST

Report: Torre 'rips' A-Rod and Steinbrenner in new book
By 'Duk
One would assume the final Sunday in January is the dullest day of the year when it comes to baseball news. Most years one would be right.

Yet there's no way that's the case today. As I type, the baseball blogosphere is ablaze over reports in the New York Post and Daily News that Joe Torre's forthcoming book on his 12-season tenure with the Yankees is sure to be a much talked-about page turner once it's released by Doubleday on Feb. 3.

From the NY Post:

"Scorned skipper Joe Torre is blasting the Yankees ? calling many of his former players prima donnas, confessing he stopped trusting the powers that be years before he left the team and charging that general manager Brian Cashman betrayed him (in his final contract negotiations with the Yankees)." 

The Post says it obtained a copy of "The Yankee Years" because a New York bookstore mistakenly had it up for sale before its release. The paper also reports that Torre reveals that Alex Rodriguez was called "A-Fraud" by his teammates, that Yankee doctors told George Steinbrenner about Torre's prostate cancer before they told Torre himself and that GM Brian Cashman "remained silent during Torre's tense final sitdown with the bosses."

The book is written by Sports Illustrated's Tom Verducci, who culled the third-person account from interviews with Torre. Neither Torre or Verducci seems like the type to lob grenades at incidents past and ESPN.com's Jerry Crasnick says that a source told him the NY tabloids are simply sensationalizing the book's contents.

"Joe is very honest in the book,'' the source told Crasnick. "But he doesn't make any personal attacks. In terms of him name-calling, that's not his style.''

Still, that bucket of cold water hasn't doused the fervor of bookbuyers ? "TYY" is currently ranked in the top 20 on Amazon ? or the disappointinment of Yankee and Dodger bloggers. "He ain't pretty no more," says the headline on Bronx Banter and presumably that refers to their beloved ex-skipper.

Here's a sampling of the "haven't-it-read-it-yet" reactions:

Steve Lombardi, WasWatching: "Am I shocked that Torre is spilling the beans on them? Sorta/kinda, I guess. Part of me thought Joe was a high-road guy. But, another part of me can see him playing the role of the Vengeful Don." 

Rob, 6-4-2: "A new book on Joe Torre by Tom Verducci will reputedly go after the Steinbrenners, though honestly it doesn't much sound like anything we hadn't heard or imagined before; after all, the contract negotiations, in which the Yankees refused to make more than a one-year deal for Torre's services, had the air of a failing marriage."

Lisa Swan, Subway Squawkers: "But now Joe no longer seems classy. This type of name-calling book is something we would expect out of a long-retired manager or somebody bitter about not being in the game anymore, like Jose Canseco. But Torre is still the highest-paid manager in baseball, still gets tons of endorsement deals, and is still widely respected by many. Why he would be so petty in this new book is beyond either of us."

The book is 477-pages long and undoubtedly will have a lot of positive recollections of four World Series championship appearances. But until the rest of us crack the book's spine, we'll just have to guess how much "ripping" Torre actually does.

---

Thoughts?

Just read this on TSN literally seconds ago lol...I duno about Jeter and teamates calling A-rod, A-Fraud...maybe happened once...but still it will be an interesting book

I always liked Torre, this only adds to my appreciation for the man.  A-Fraud!  That's great!  I thought only Sox, or non-Yankee fans called him that.  Didn't realize it made its way into the Yankee clubhouse.  At least we still have gAy-Rod to ourselves.

Alex Rodriguez is probably the most overrated athlete in the history of sports

King of the meaningless 3 run homerun

He is on pace to break the home run record in MLB...How is that over-rated?

I think you are letting your personal feelings determine your opinions.

Barry Bonds isn't overrated?

Let me explain

A Rod is a great STAT guy but he is king of the meaningless statistic.

his stats and play DO NOTHING to earn victories for his team

He sucks in the clutch, sucks in the postseason


there is a difference hitting a walkoff HR and hitting a 3 run home run when your team is up or down 6 runs.

Arod does most of his damage when the game is already decided.

If his team is down 2 runs in the 9th u can chalk up a double play or a strikeout almost everytime.

That's not entirely true about the postseason. He was actually good in it with seattle and up to game 4 of the alcs against the sox in 2005. Since then the yankees have collectively been a big unclutch turd in the postseason.

That's because he isn't a TRUE YANKEE.

Maybe but how do you explain the rest of the teams inability to hit when it counts?

On the book:

I reserve judgement til I read it.  It doesn't seem either Torre's or Verducci's style...but it IS the Post's style to overblow an exlcusive.  Tabloid journalism at it's finest

On Arod:

The criticism is an urban legend...albeit a prevalent one  The stats have been broken down by a variety of sources (ESPN, SI, baseball-reference, and a whole slew of other stat outfits) all show it's just not true.  He doesn't hit any more "meaningless" home runs than any other comparable power hitter.  He doesn't strike out any more in "clutch" situations than any other power hitter. His BA, OBS, Slug%, et all are right in line with what you'd expect them to be, given the situations. The fact that's the perception speaks more the the pressure and expectations of A-rod (probably due to him being both the best, and highest paid, player in the game) than it does to A-rod's actual performance.

For anyone that would disagree:  Please show me some stats.  EVERY stat breakdown I've seen by EVERY reputable source has shown otherwise.   I'm perfectly willing to have an open mind on this, but you're going to have to provide some proof..since the proof I HAVE seen is contrary to the "Urban Legend".

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=rodrial01

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=rodrial01#situa-clutc

The one, and only, grain of truth in the urban legend is that his postseason stats with the Yanks are FAR below his season stats.  Of course, you can make the argument that, without A-rods season stats, the Yanks very well might not have been IN the post season.  Maybe not an "excuse" but certainly something that should be considered.

Proof?

Remember that somewhere around 60% of the time (or more, depending on other factors...and even the 60% is being generous to the hitters OBP), the hitter is going to record an out in the situation you describe, above.  That's what the stats say.

I suspect the truth is people REMEMBER the double plays and strikeouts more then the walks, dribble ground ball outs, long fly ball outs, etc.  Just like they remember the HR's more than the seeing eye or infield singles.  It's the nature of the beast.  And since A-rod is such a lightening rod, and the expectations of him are so (unreasonably) high, it magnifies everything.  The guy is not going to bat 1.000 with 100 HR's in a season.  That's just not realistic...yet it seems to be what everyone expects the guy to do.

Atta boy, Joe!

(http://bigpapadaddy.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/arod20slap.jpg)

I have that picture saved to my CPU, one of my all time faves.  What a gamer that A-Rod is.  Slapping the ball out of Arroyo's glove like the bitch he is.  Oh and who can forget him yelling "Haaa" at the 3rd baseman on that popup a few years ago.  What a good guy!

Alexa.

Haha.

Right.

And who can forget Manny having to take a phone call, or a pee break, in the wall?

Or his "hurt knee".

If you want to argue character, and character of players on certain teams, we can certainly do that I suppose.  But that's a much more "personal opinion" argument, which is going to largely be based on which team you're a fan of.

However, that wasn't the initial point....

Difference is, Manny helped his team win 2 World Series rings.  You certainly can't say the same for A-Rod.  Maybe he should start taking notes on Manny being Manny.  Listen, I hate the guy, I'm not gonna hide that.  I absolutely LOVE the fact that he hasn't won a damn thing with the Yankees.  If that ever changes I won't be able to take this stance anymore.  So I'm gonna enjoy it while it lasts.  Much like it did with Peyton Manning.  I can't slam him anymore after he actually won the big game.  I know plenty of Yankee fans who'd much rather have Scott Brosius, Mike Lowell, or even a Joe Crede playing 3B rather than that prima donna A-Rod.  Maybe you're not one of them, but for as great a player as he is, the return on investment has not been there as of yet.

That's the thing with Yankee fans, they are in constant denial when things are not going well.

All i know is, Yanks won 4 titles without A Rod and even though their payroll is over 200 million, they haven't won with A Rod cause he can't do shit in the postseason but freeze up.

We can play the stats game all day, but THAT is the bottom line.

Please use the stairs in case of an emergency.

That's the thing with "Yankee Haters"...they'll never give credit where it's due.

How are things not going well?

Because we didn't make the post season last  year?

Agreed....I think we've addressed that, now, since I'd say MOST of the reason was rotation and injuries.  We'll see this year.  But I hardly think you can point to A-Rod's numbers and say HE was the reason we didn't make it last year.

If by "not going well" you mean not winning WS titles...then there are LOTS of other teams where things are "not going well" either.  It's a bogus and unrealistic metric. 

The Yanks have won more games over the past 10 years than any other franchise has.  That doesn't sound, to me, like "things aren't going well".

They also sell out more games than any other franchise.  They make more revenue than any other franchise.  They are, by a whole host of metrics, one of the, if not the, most successful franchises in SPORTS.

But see...that's the difference between STATS and fan perception.....

So then the Sox sucked last year?  I mean, they won 2 with Manny....so now they must suck, right?

Laying the blame at any one players feet is complete and utter crap.  Again, it's fan perception, rather than reality.  We can play the "rah rah" game if you want....but it's not going to get us very far.

And "Yankee Haters" rarely want to actually talk about the reality of the stats...because it typically blows their "arguments" to hell.

Along with how many other teams?

Does that mean their best players are chokers, too?  And I agree...A-Rod's postseason stats have been pretty bad...but without him, they don't make it at all.


ONE team wins the WS every year.  ONE.  It's not realistic to expect that any one team can maintain a streak like the Yanks had in the late 90's.  And people fail to point out the "streak" ended BEFORE A-Rod came to NYC. 

But they continued to win games, win division titles (until the past couple of years), and make the playoffs (until last year).  THAT'S the metric for success for pretty much every other team in baseball.  

Nobody wants to apply it to the Yanks, though.....because THEN the "Yankee haters" would have to admit just how good of a run they've had.  You ask the Cubs, Rays, Dodgers, White Sox, etc...if they did what the Yanks had done since 2000-2001, would they consider themselves successful?  I think we all know what the answer would be.

I will agree:  Last year was not a success for the Yanks.  If they don't manage to turn it around THIS year (especially with all the retooling), then I'll agree there is an issue, and things aren't going well.  But a one year break from the playoffs, considering the patched together rotation and injuries they dealt with last year?  If THAT'S your "metric" that the franchise's winning ways are in the past.....fair enough.  I think that's influenced by your SUBJECTIVE view of the Yanks.  But, in reality, one season doesn't a trend make.

You're talking about a subjective opinion, rather than an objective evaluation.

I KNOW you hate A-Rod.  You're a Sox fan.  He not only fucked you over (well, HE didn't...but the outcome was the same) when you thought you were going to land him, but he did it AGAIN by eventually signing with the Yanks.  I GET that....not to mention you have to face him, and his stats, a slew of times every year.

But you can't argue he hasn't been valuable to the Yanks.  He's had 2 MVP seasons with them.  He's GOTTEN them to the playoffs.  There are PLENTY of other great players out there, who have had GREAT careers, who haven't won a WS.  Do they all "suck", too?'

Wade Boggs...did he "suck" before he became a Yankee, and then suddenly became great afterwards?

Your subjective opinion is, IMHO, influencing the "metric" you decide to use to measure A-rod.  That's hardly fair.  You can certainly hold on to that opinion, but I can't see any reason you can actually argue it and expect anyone else to adopt it, objectively.

As for the "other" Yankee fans....I know they exist.  Doesn't make them right.  Alex isn't a home grown Yankee.  He's not....the most "fan friendly" player, either, because he does have his quirks and idiosyncracies.  I don't care.  All that matters to me is how well he does his job and if he contributes to the Yankees winning games.  So far, he certainly has done that....the stats show it.  And when it comes down to brass tacks, you can't argue the stats.  And arguing subjective opinion, especially when you're fans of other teams, is pretty much worthless.

I guess Yankee fans have learned to temper their expectations over the years then.  I remember a time, not too long ago, when anything less than a World Series was viewed as a failure.  After all, they have had the largest payroll since they won their last World Series and they haven't won since.  So if you want to compare the Yankees to the Cubs, Rays, Dodgers, and White Sox you can go right ahead.  NO team plays on the same financial level as the Yanks though, you can't argue that.  A-Rod is the highest paid player in baseball on a team that has 4 of the 5 highest paid players in the game.  And you're satisfied with just making the playoffs? 

I realize the Red Sox aren't exactly a low market team, but I'm not exactly satisfied with last season.  We were one win short of the World Series and I thought we had a legit shot at going back to back.  So I wasn't exactly thrilled with the outcome.

And I never said Alex Rodriguez sucked and he's the sole reason the Yankees haven't won a world series.  He's obviously among the best players in the game, if not the best.  But that doesn't change the fact that he's never sniffed the World Series in his career, and he's certainly had his fair share of chances so far.

There's realism and there's fandom.

As a fan, I WANT to see my team make it to the WS every year. 

It's not realistic to expect them to.  Nobody can do that.  Nobody.  No matter what their payroll, no matter what their talent level.  It's just not a relaistic metric.  You might THINK expectations have changed, and G0d knows the New York media circus helps perpetuate that, but I don't think you'd find many Yanks fans who would realistically expect them to win 12 straight WS championships.

What IS realistic is being competitive, winning games, and making the playoffs.  Now, I'm not "comparing" the Yanks to the teams mentioned...I said "Ask them how they'd feel if you told them they were going to go on a 'Yankee-esque' run over the last 7 years".  I think every GM would be pretty much tickled.  You could ask just about ANY teams fans the same question, and you'd likely get the same answer: ecstatic.  That's because, around MLB, that's pretty much the gold standard of success.  Yet many of the "Yankee haters" (and you're right, maybe some Yankees fans) hold the boys in pinstripes up to a MUCH higher standard...and I suspect it's likely just so they can tear them down when they don't achieve it.

As a FAN, I want the Yanks to field a team that's competitive every year.  I expect, with their payroll, they'll do that and make the playoffs most, if not every, year.  They pretty much do.  They've won more games than any other team over the past 10 years. 

That's what the money buys. And it puts buts in seats, which ultimately is as much the goal as the championships (which, likewise, puts butts in seats).  As eveyone points out, you can't BUY WS championships.  You just can't.  There's too many intangibles beyond just talent. and skill.  Injuries, luck, and all the other beautiful aspects of this game go into it.  And you just can't expect it all to go your way, season in and season out.  There are too many other good teams out there, and too much changes from year to year (witness the Rays turn around last year...).  Payroll is just ONE factor in the whole schema, and it's not even the most important.  A teams payroll should have ZERO to do with any metric for how successful, ON THE FIELD, they are.  Teams that have the lowest payrolls shouldn't be considered successful (on the field) for playing .450 baseball, and teams with higher payrolls shouldn't be considered UNSUCCESSFUL if they fail to win 100 games, sweep everyone in the post-season, and win a WS.  When I look at teams....I don't think I've ever considered their payroll in terms of how good a year they had on the field.  That seems to be a standard ONLY the Yanks are held up to...even when in years past there have been OTHER teams relatively close to them in payroll (Sox, Mets....).

Do I WANT them to win it all, evey year?  Sure.  But there's a difference between WANTING them to win, and EXPECTING them to win.  No team is ever going to live up to that level of expectations.  Not in this era.....


Not happy with the outcome?  Sure, it stings.   Again, part of being a FAN.

Do you consider the season a FAILURE because you didn't win the AL East and win the WS?  I'd say they had a pretty good run, last year....a pretty successful season.


Ditto with a whole HOST of players out there.  Doesn't make them any worse, as players.

You hold the "no WS win" over his head not because it actually reflects all that poorly on his play, but because it's an easy "jeer" to summon up.  Cheap heat, if you will.  Which is fine, because...from a play perspective, it's pretty much all anyone "has" on him. 

Cubs fans bring up attendance figures all the time as well.  ;)

If you are satisfied with not making the playoffs, or losing in the ALDS and calling the season successful, BE MY GUEST!

P.S. Pummeling the Rays, Jays, and O's on a consistent basis for the last decade will pad any team's W-L ratio.

Denial denial, tsk tsk tsk.

I wouldn't call last season a complete failure for the Red Sox.  That's a little harsh.  But I would say they failed to achieve their ultimate goal.  They were defending World Series champs, brought back basically the same team, and stayed ahead of the Yankees pretty much all season long.  Who knew the Rays would be so good, but still they forced a game 7 against them with their ace going (Lester) vs. the Rays #3 (Garza).  I fully expected to win that game and would've taken our chances against the Phillies with a chance to repeat.  So overall, yeah they failed to do that.  But no, I wouldn't classify the season as a failure.  And I know all teams go into the season with the hopes of winning it all, but the Sox had some pretty good odds going into last year.  So you could say their season was less fulfilling than the Marlins because of the difference in expectations.

I'm NOT satisfied with missing the playoffs.  THIS season was not a success.  I believe I said that.

MAKING the playoffs makes the season a success, though.  THAT'S the metric everyone else uses.  Nobody has yet been able to explain why the Yanks deserve to be held to a higher standard...other than so "they" can feel good about themselves when tearing the Yanks down.  Typical "Yankee Hater" subjective bullshit.  Hold them to the same standard and...Geez...things look like they were going pretty damn well til last year....when 1/2 the opening day lineup and 3/5's of the rotation were injured at some point during the season.   That's not meant to be an excuse, but it should at least DELAY worry until this year.  If it happens again...I'll agree: Things won't be going well.
 
PS:  Every league has it's weak teams.  Of course, the question begs:  Are Toronto and Baltimore bad because they're "bad" (as in, their records are bad) because they get pounded by Boston and the Yanks every year.  With Toronto, I think that's the case.  They're a decent team, pretty much every year.  Baltimore....well, they're bad.

The Yanks have more wins than any team in baseball over the past 10 years...or the past 7.  Period.  End of story.  You can't deny it.  You can't wiggle past it.  It is what it is.  No other team has been as successful in the W/L column as the Yanks.  Every team plays it's share of weak and strong teams.  For every time they face Baltimore, they have to face Boston.  The only way to "poo poo" it is to bury your head in the sand and ignore it because it sticks in your craw.

As for 'denial"....I'd say a much better example of that is those denying the Yanks have been successful...MASSIVELY successful.  And if "your team" went on a similar run....you'd be shitting your pants ecstatic.  THAT'S denial, my friend.  Because the facts are the facts.

Maybe if we are talking about the Texas Rangers.  Do you think Cubs fans are happy with having the best record and getting swept in the first round?  I highly doubt they would call that season successful.

Chop down that payroll and all the "Yankee Haters" will cut the boys in pinstripes some slack.  Until then, no free pass.  You will always be judged differently.

Sadly, "my team" can never go on a run like that.  I would never even dream of it.

P.S. The 2008 Lakers were a failure.

Because the facts are facts.

I think its funny that a team with such an abnormally large payroll continues to flounder.

Proof that money doesn't buy success.

Fans are exactly that: fanatics.  Their subjective opinion doesn't mean much when actually judging success or failure.  But, in the annuals of history, yes...I'd say the Cubs had a successful season.   They made the playoffs, right?  That's the metric for successful, right there.  Is it the pinnacle?  No, but I'd hardly count it as FAILURE, either.


Which is bullshit.  But thanks for qualifying you opinion.  Now we know you'll always judge them unfairly and differently than everyone else.  Nobody else, in any other sport...no matter if they have the highest payroll or not...is judged that way.  Nobody.

Why should they "chop down the payroll"?  And why is everyone else so interested in what the Steinbrenners pay their employees?  It makes zero sense to use that as an excuse (and that's all it really is) for holding the Yankees up to an unreasonable metric of success.   

Payroll means shit on the field.  You want to talk payroll, we'll talk business or parity.  You'll lose on both discussions if you're arguing it's bad for either....trust me, largely for the exact things you've pointed out.

You either win games or  you don't.  You make the playoffs or you don't.  You win the WS or you don't.  How much you pay your team is irrelevant in that entire discussion...unless you're actively looking for a reason to discount or minimize the success.

Wins shouldn't count MORE if you have a lower payroll and LESS if you have a higher one.  Not when judging the outcomes on the field.....

If the Yanks WIN the WS...well, they're supposed to so it doesn't mean anything.  If they DON'T...they have the highest payroll in sports so they should have and failed.  It's a catch-22 metric created by the "Yankee Haters".  By all means, hold onto it tightly...but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.


That's my point.  And you just made it for me:  You would never DREAM of it...as in, it's beyond your wildest dreams to go on a 12 year playoff run.  

But the Yanks doing it means "things aren't going well".

To me, it looks like jealously and subjectivity largely colors your interpretation of "success", when it comes to the Yanks.  We're playing the "rah rah" game and it's not going to get anyone very far.


Really?  How so?  They made the playoffs, made it to the finals, and lost to the Celtics who had the best record in the NBA?

How is that "failure"?  How is that not a successful season?

Because the facts are the facts:  They won a ton of games, made the playoffs, and were the best team in their conference?

Man, if that's the metric you're going to use...then I guess EVERY team but one's season is a failure EVERY year.    I don't buy into that metric, and I dont' think you'll find many objective opinions that will.

Please define "flounder"?  Nobody's been able to demonstrate any "floundering" or any evidence (other than missing the playoffs THIS past year) that "things aren't going well", yet.  They just simply SAY it. So, can someone provide any evidence, using a reasonable metric, showing this?  Maybe then we'll have a better jumping off point for this discussion.....

Because, as has been pointed out, winning more games than anyone else in baseball over the last 10 (and even 7) years, making the playoffs 12 straight years (with this year being the exception)....none of that sounds like "floundering" to me.  T

THIS past year was not successful.  Maybe they hit a bump, maybe it's a sign that the "floundering" and "not going well" has begun.  We'll see what this year brings......if it's another unsuccessful year, I'll come right back and jump on  your bandwagon.

Well, if the Yankee fan sitting high and mighty on his white horse can label the 2008 Cubs successful, who are we to argue?  Cubs fans, keep your chins up!

The Braves made the playoffs 14 years in a row, yet they only won the WS once.  

A GREAT SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111one!!!1111

Payroll issues are not bullshit.  If you pay a guy to help you win ballgames and he doesn't, that means you just wasted your money to buy a loss.  The same thing happens in the workforce.  If you hire someone to do a job and they don't do it, they usually get fired.

You either win games or you don't?  Thanks for pointing that out to me, I had no idea.

You make the playoffs or you don't?  Gee, I had no idea.

You win the WS or you don't.    OHHH!!!!  I think I'm catching on!  Does this apply to other sports as well?

I don't think anyone is taking YOU seriously, hombre.  You would have been a great spokesman for the Bush administration.  You sir, are in denial.  You can write as many essays you want on the subject, but those essays won't help you or the Yankees.  Are you still going to defend last year's bullpen?

Teams are in it to make the playoffs, not win championships.  I'll call Sports Illustrated and give them this bit of news.

Again: FANATICS vs OBJECTIVE EVALUATION.  Subjectively, you can call the Cubs season whatever you want.....but OBJECTIVELY?  How is it anything but successful?  As successful as you would have liked (as a fan)?  Maybe not....

As for the Braves run, it absolutely was a success.  The pinnacle?  No, but again:  You're going to say making the playoffs 14 years straight is FAILURE?  Really?

How in the hell do you justify THAT opinion?


Ah, so your opinion is that you'd like to become involved in the Steinbrenners employee review process?  Call 'em up and ask em.

But what they pay their employees doesn't effect the history of wins and losses, playoff appearances, and world series wins.

They already happened.

And that's how you measure success ON THE FIELD.


By saying their payroll matters when judging their success on the field...it certainly seems like you don't.  Thanks for confirming it.



By saying their payroll matters when judging their success on the field...it certainly seems like you don't.  Thanks for confirming it.


By saying their payroll matters when judging their success ON THE FIELD...it certainly seems like you don't.  Thanks for confirming it.


Again, I have stats, win/loss records, and history.  Your only piece of evidence is "They haven't won a world series lately".  How exactly is that "denial", again?  Oh, because your subjective evaluation interferes with your ability to make any sort of objective evaluation, and it's the only thing you can come up with to refute my points.  Gotcha....

And haven't we already covered that I agree that LAST season was NOT a success?  They had a myriad of issues, from a short bullpen (which got much better, later in the year), to injuries, to lack of performance (and, FYI, that didn't come as much from the guys making the $$, but from Cano and Melky).  Some of it concerning, some of it not so much.  UNTIL last year, though.......a pretty successful run.


As I said:  The ULTIMATE goal  of any team is to win a championship...whether they have a realistic shot to do so or not.  But only ONE team does that every year. 

To be clear: YOUR metric for success or failure is that ONLY the team that wins a championship is deemed successful, and every other team's season is a complete, abject failure?  If that's the (IMHO, UNREASONABLE) metric you want to stand by...fair enough.  That's where our (and most people's) disconnect with you will be.

I don't think it's that cut and dry.  In baseball, most people would say making the playoffs means you had a successful season.  Making your LCS is another level of success.  Making the WS is another level.  And WINNING the WS is the pinnacle. 

I have a hard time saying the Cubs, Sox, Rays, etc had seasons that were failures this past year....I don't see many other people saying so either.

A team with the highest payroll in baseball should not be satisfied with merely making the playoffs, they should be in contention for a World Series.

If playoffs are all that matter, why does Allen Iverson want a ring?

He's in the playoffs virtually every year, shouldn't that be sufficient and meet your definition of "success?"

Well, here's to a SUCCESSFUL YANKEES SEASON!

By your standards, of course.  : ok:

Denial.  Thank you for confirming it.

Every year, every team but ONE "fails to achieve their ultimate goal".  Because the ultimate goal...whether you have a realistic shot of achieving it or not...is to win the WS.  When you have a realistic shot, and don't accomplish it...sure, it stings a bit more than

You can't win every year.  You just can't.  And if that's your expectation, you're being unrealistic, and likely going to be frequently disappointed.


BINGO!  Now we're getting somewhere.

LESS fulfilling?  Sure, but that's not what we're talking about here.  We're talking about success and failure.  Am I personally disappointed when the Yanks lose in the ALDS, and don't win the WS?  Sure, and I find the season "less fulfilling" than if they'd won the WS.  But then...WHO WOULDN'T?  But, like you just admitted above, I hardly consider the season a FAILURE when it happens.   8 teams do that every year.  8.  And the only constants (til this year) has been that the Yanks over the previous 12 years.  TWELVE YEARS IN A ROW.  

But "things aren't going so well"??  C'mon

The Sox also  have the same team this year, largely (assuming Varitek comes back).  Wouldn't you consider it a successful season if they made it into the playoffs, won their division series, and lost to the Yanks in 5 in the ALCS?

It would sting, you'd be disappointed at the loss...but could you really sit there and say they'd FAILED?  I don't buy that ANY fan would feel that way...at least once the sting of the loss faded and they looked back objectively.

Payroll is irrelevant.  That's a made up metric so that people can justify holding up the Yankees to a higher, unreasonable, standard simply so they can point to the Yanks and say they fail.  As I've said: It's the catch-22.  If they win..they were supposed to win so it doesn't matter.  If they don't win, they're supposed to so they failed.  It's bullshit, plain and simple.  Nobody, in any other sport, has that thrown at them....

And "Making the playoffs" IS "in contention for a World Series".  That's the point.  You're one of 8 teams in contention.

Everyone WANTS a ring. Every player (you'd think, as a competitor) wants to win every year.  Every FAN WANTS their team to win a championship  every year.  

Is it realistic to EXPECT to?  Of course not.

Would I say that Iverson has had a successful career?  Sure.

Would I say that the teams Iverson has played on, that have made the playoffs, were successful teams?  Sure.

Iverson has not achieved  HIS goal to win a championship.

Doesn't mean his career has been a failure.  Doesn't mean the teams he's played for have been failures, or their seasons have been abject failures.

Again, ONE team wins every year.  Are you all  seriously saying that you think every team that doesn't win their sports championship have had a season that was an abject failure?

You didn't really make any points for me to address.  You just repeated yourself, albeit in a very eloquent manner.  I thank you for the pleasant read.

If payroll is irrelevant, why are they spending what, $200,000,000 on A-Rod so he can sit on the sidelines while others compete for a World Series?

How many down and out of luck families could that money feed?

Shouldn't that kind of money only be warranted when he's actually won his team a World Series?


In contention for the World Series, not actually in the World Series.


Well, they weren't there to sell popcorn, they were there to win a championship.

When that doesn't happen, players and the coach tend to get traded.

It's irrelevant in terms of results on the field.

You wanna talk business and parity....we can have at that.

You wanna talk successful, in terms of winning and losing....it's irrelevant.

How the Steinbrenners choose to pay their employees just doesn't matter.  If they see value...it's THEIR money to spend.  We can argue whether it's good for the franchise's financial success (though there's not much argument, considering their profitability over the past years) or long term stability.  But that's a different conversation.


Which is what you said:


They are, when they're in the playoffs.  Expecting any team, no matter what they pay their staff, to make it TO the WS  EVERY year is an unreasonable level of expectation.  In the modern age...you just can't do it.  You can hope for it.  You can try to work toward it.  But you're just never gonna do it.  History pretty much shows that.


Well, actually....

TECHNICALLY, they're there to sell seats, merchandise, and popcorn...because Major League Sports is, above all else, a business.

But that's a different conversation (one where payroll WOULD be relevant).

And yes, the ultimate goal on the field  is ALWAYS going to be to win a championship.  But only ONE team does that, every year.

But judging a team's whole season as a failure, simply because they didn't win the championship.....pretty harsh.   That means you all think the only successful team last year was the Phillies.  Really???

Sorry, I don't buy it.  And, quite frankly, it doesn't seem like most people do, either...at least when looking at things objectively.


Because you're always trying to get better, next year.  It doesn't mean you weren't successful THIS year.  You're talking about moves to ensure your future success, or to increase your chances of being MORE successful in the future. 

Pot. Kettle. Black. 

The difference being, I've addressed your points.  You've yet to do the same...so I keep repeating them in hopes of getting something other than platitudes.

Maybe you're right...I should've known better.   ;)

Well, if they haven't won a World Series since 2001, I'd say it is very much relevant since they clearly aren't getting a return on their investment.


Yeah, it is there money to spend, I just think its rather sad that they choose to spend $200,000,000 on a single individual when there is so much needless suffering in the world.

Also notice how the Tampa Bay Rays made it to the World Series this past year, how many players do they have making $200,000,000?

It would appear money isn't an essential factor to making it to the World Series.


The Boston Bruins made it deep into the playoffs 30 years in a row, the Chicago Blackhawks, 29 in a row.

Not a championship, but close, and neither team had a budget anywhere near the New York Yankees budget.

Where there is a will, there is a way.


No, but to have not won one in 7 seasons, something is clearly not working with the formula your team has chosen to employ.

Which is a completely different conversation about their business model...not whether they been successful on the field or not.  That comes down to wins and losses, not things like ROI or profit.

And in terms of THAT metric, they've been quite successful.  The Yankees are making money, as an organization,  hand over fist.  Between ballpark revenues, merchandising, the YES network, etc.....they can AFFORD to spend it if they think that's the best way to make it.


Sure.  And movie stars make 20 milliion+ a picture with a cut of the profit....because their face makes the company paying them a butt load of money.


That's rather the point and why discussing the payroll is irrelevant.  It doesn't factor in to the success on the field. 


Again, that's the point.  Payroll isn't relevant to measuring how successful those teams are.  I'd count BOTH the teams mentioned, above, as pretty successful over that run.  Wouldn't you?



They HAVE won...not the WS, but the've won more games than any other team in baseball.  They've made the playoffs every year but this one (which I've already said wasn't a successful season...we'll see if it's the start of a trend or not).   They're a competitive team, night in and night out.  Clearly, that piece of the forumula IS working.  They're not a sub .500 team, last place in their division (usually).  When they ARE, over the past couple of seasons (and they've spent time there), THAT'S when I agree they're not successful.

There are plenty of other teams who have not won a world series over the past 7 years, either.....NONE of them are successful, then?  And in every single case their "formula is clearly not working"?  Again, I think you're holding the Yanks up to a bogus metric simply to be able to say they're failing.

The ONLY metric in which they're "Failing" is the strictest, most unreasonable, most extreme metric you can apply to them:  They haven't won a championship in the recent past.  By that metric, about 90% of MLB teams fail, too.

I've been a Yankee fan for life but I always referred to Rodriguez is either A-Fraud or Gay-Rod since his days of signing that monster deal with Texas and the reasons he gave for it, this after saying he was a lifelong Mets Fan.  Alex has had "foot in the mouth" syndrome since he was in Seattle and always seems to make an ass out of himself giving interviews.

As for this book, after reading how on-line news reporters twisted Axl's on-line postings around, I'll reserve judgement until reading the book, if I get around to it.

Sure, they can afford to spend those sums of money, but if its not amounting to a World Series victory, at what point do you say "this formula just isn't working?"


So two wrongs therefore must make a right?


Now compare them to Toronto or New York, the two most valuable teams in the league with the biggest payrolls.

Toronto hasn't won a cup since 1967, and New York, aside from 1994 haven't won a cup since 1951.

Noticing a trend?

Money evidently doesn't buy success, so why continue to use that formula hoping it will work?


If they're not winning a championship, then yes, something isn't working.

If championships didn't matter, everyone would get a participation ribbon and standings wouldn't exist.

Never.  Because their payroll equates to their business practices and profit, and not their success on the field...and certainly not when measuring that success HISTORICALLY...because the results have already happened.

If they pay a guy 20 million a year, he's the worst player in the league, but for some reason he puts butts in seats, sells merchandise, and makes them a profit....that's their decision.

There's some seperation between BUSINESS success and "on the field" success.  That's my point.  One doesn't dictate, indicate, or predict the other, necessarily.


No, it's a demonstration that your point is above just baseball.  It's the world we live in...I'm not sure why baseball should be held up to a different standard than the rest of the world is at this point.

You wanna talk inequities of the world, I'm on board (and in the politics threads over in the jungle) but I'm not sure this topic is really the best place to do it.

Incidentally, I agree.  I understand the why's and how's, but I still agree that it's sad.

That "aside from '94" is a pretty big aside. The Wings and Devils seem to rule the league, of late, and the "leftovers" mean not MANY teams have won, either..  In addition, with the player cap, salary cap, and relative overall parity in the NHL (aside from the aforementioned runs by the Devils and Wings)...I'm not sure the 4 or 5 million dollars difference in payroll means anything in terms of differentiation or predictability.  I don't think, based on the evidence I can see, the correlation you seem to be seeing is there, or very strong.

As for money not "buying success", THEY (meaning the Steinbrenners) seem to disagree....or, rather, they think the money spent is MAKING them money.  And that's your answer.

Again, you need to seperate "on the field success" (which the Yanks have had) from "business success" (which they've also had).  Really, there are TWO ultimate goals for a franchise...you have to keep them somewhat seperate, though one can help lead to the other....or not.


So for every team but one, every year...something isn't working?  For a team like the Rays, for example, who went from cellar dwellar to winning the AL East "something isn't working"?

Again, that's a harsh and unrealistic metric to hold every team but ONE up against every year.  And it's not one most people adopt.


I didn't say they didn't matter.  They do.  But they're not the end all, be all, 100% measure of success or failure in a season.  They are the PINNACLE of success.  Everyone wants to attain the pinnacle....but NOT achieving it doesn't mean you've completely failed.  There are gradients of success.

That's great that they put butts in seats, yet that doesn't change the fact that despite the sums of money they've spent, and continue to spend, they still haven't won a World Series in 7 seasons.

You can try and separate "business" from "on the field" all you want, but that's the bottom line.

They're spending money like drunken sailors, and it's not getting them to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

You really think the powers to be and the players are satisfied with a sold out house and a few thousand bags of popcorn sold?

I doubt it. I'm thinking they'd like a World Series victory.


Because virtually every professional sport has a salary cap, and most athletes don't make nearly as much as professional baseball players.

And since you brought up how much movie stars make, none that I'm aware of make $200,000,000 a movie.


Not really, all I meant was that aside from a cup they won with Mark Mercier in his last year before retirement, they hadn't won one since '51.


Despite being the two most valuable franchises in the NHL, both teams seem to have difficulty in capturing a Stanley Cup.

Aside from Detroit's win last year, the last 3 winners were Anaheim, Carolina, and Tampa Bay.

Hardly lucrative franchises in the NHL compared to Toronto or New York, wouldn't you say?

And the New Jersey Devils haven't won a Stanley Cup in 5 years, so I really would't call that "ruling" the league.


But wouldn't they be making a lot more with a World Series victory?

Shouldn't that be the top priority as the owners of a baseball team?

It comes down to the question of "do I wanna' make a little money, or alot of money?"

Most business owners would go with the latter.


Exactly, and a World Series victory helps the on field morale and creates the needed motivation to capture another one.

From a business perspective, the value of a team whose just won a World Series tends to go up, as does the value of the players on that team.

So it would seem that despite you wanting to keep on field success and business separate, the two become linked together with a World Series victory.


If they weren't able to reach the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, obviously there is need for improvement.

If everything was working, they would have won the World Series.

I don't see what's so perplexing.

If a team is 100% operational, chances are they're going to be winning a World Series, if they don't then, yes, something obviously isn't working.


The New England Patriots almost went undefeated last year, but didn't.

Something obviously went wrong.

Whether they didn't get enough sleep, or just weren't feeling the weather that day, something went wrong, and they didn't win.


So if I lose a race, I haven't "completely" failed, just "sort of" failed?

In any sport, the team who wins the championship has reached the pinnacle of success.

Winning a playoff game isn't the pinnacle of success, the championship is.

The whole season is spent working towards a championship, if that isn't attained, then the season's primary objective wasn't successful.

The opposite of success isn't "sort of" success, it's failure.

Actually "the bottom line" is seperate...that's the point.  ;)

And it's not ME who wants to seperate the two...it's the facts of the industry.  You can't change them just because you want to create a fictitious metric to hold a team up to or because you want an "excuse" to hold them up to some unattainably high standard.


Which pot, which rainbow?  Again, there's a distinction.  It's certainly got them the LITERAL pot of gold.


The "powers that be" are likely VERY satisfied with the money rolling in, yes.  Because at least 1/2 of "the powers that be"...that is, the ownership and business people...are focused on the franchise as a BUSINESS and not as a SPORT entity.  Again, rather the point.

 Would they all LIKE one?  Sure...wouldn't every player and owner LIKE one?

But NEED one in order to consider themselves successful, or to view the past seasons as successful.  No...I doubt they do.


So what?  MLB chooses to do things differently because they think it benefits them financially to do so.  You think baseball needs a salary cap?  Great..we can talk about that.  But it has nothing to do with what's already happened...only what might happen in the future, in the great "what if" game.


Neither do baseball players.....if you consider a "Movie" ONE season.  And, actually, a movie takes about 6 to 8 weeks to film...considerably shorter than the average major league sports season.


Which is the point (though not in relation to franchise "value"...that means zippo):  The amount you pay has no corresponding "metric" in success.  They're mutually exclusive.  Thus, payroll is irrelevant to the "success on the field" metric.  You keep making my point for me....

You seem to be saying "Well, if that's the case, why spend the money...if you can't BUY a championship, why pay so much?".

The answer is, as I've said, because you think it's good business to do so...which has zero to do with which measure of "success" should be used when looking at teams results on the field.  They are two radically different pieces:  The BUSINESS of sports vs the COMPETITIVENESS of sports.

Three to Four years is an awful small sample set, especially when you're looking at Championships.   We're using 7 for the Yanks.  I looked at the same time frame (keeping in mind the cap inception in '05..I know it was a game changer).  I also looked at who had won SINCE the Rangers won last.

Over last 7 cups:  Wings, Ducks, Canes, Lightening, Devils, Wings, Avalanche.

From there, til when the rangers won:  Devils, Stars, Wings, Wings, Avalanche, Devils,Rangers.

And again, in the NHL, post '04, with the cap...it's hard to draw any sorts of correlations between pay and success...pro or con. 


FRANCHISE value has less to do with ANYTHING than payroll does.

Payroll is pretty much equivalent because of the cap...so I don't see your point.


The Wings and the Devils, since 99-00, have combined to win 4 cups.  That's half the ones awarded.  They're the ONLY teams during that time frame to repeat in the NHL. I'd say that puts them, historically (not presently) in a category that wuold indicate those two teams were "ruling" the league.  They were winning the majority of the cups, during the time.


Maybe....  So what?

Are you saying you're either a success or a failure?  There aren't gradients of "success"? 

Again:  I'm sure they'd LIKE to win it every year.  Every team would.  But it's not realistic to expect to do that.  You work toward it, for sure.  And if you're in contention, you've succeeded.  Then you try to be even MORE successful, get closer to one, or win one.


No, it should be ONE of them.  Your primary purpose is to keep your franchise afloat, financially...because if you don't, there's no team to "win".

That's why you have "baseball guys" and "business guys" in every organization...and a GM usually playing go between, keeping an eye on both. T

But the business guys can see the franchise as being successful during a season, while the baseball guys view the 'on the field" side as failing.  That would be THIS PAST season for the Yanks. Ditto the other way...witness the Rays this past season.

Yes, there's overlap...largely on things that effect the direction and FUTURE of the team....not on rating it's success in past seasons.  Because their metrics are vastly different.


And the Yanks have...they make more than anyone else in the league, in revenue, last I hear reported. 

But again, you're talking about "what can we do to be more successful in the future", not "what have we done in the past and have we BEEN successful".


Or it creates complaceny and a lack of drive since it's "been there, done that".  It goes both ways.  Winning one certainly hasn't historically been a predictor that you're going to win another one "soon".  Teams have done it (the Sox and Yanks), but only the Yanks managed a repeat.  By your logic, if you win one year, you should automatically win the next.  It certainly doesn't seem to work that way.

Nobody is saying winning the WS is bad, or that it's not ONE measure of success on the field.  It is...it's just not the ONLY one.


Look at what you wrote, above.   You're talking about what happens AFTER.....not how you measure stuff BEFORE.

There is some intermingling, sure.  But not when it comes to measuring what has already happened.  It's not even a good predictor of what WILL happen, on the field.  There are correlations, because performance is at least somewhat related to pay scale in the industry...but it doesn't HAVE to be.  It just happens to be many, if not most, owners equate value largely to future predicted performance level (garnered from the baseball guys/experts).  With some, though (the larger market teams) "brand" is also considered.  Look at A-rod's contract.   It's a GREAT example of that.

But again, that's the business side of the sport...it has zero to do with defining a metric for past success.


There's always need for improvement.  No team is perfect, ever...even when you win the WS.

You always work to get better.  You work to be MORE successful.  But being MORE successful doesn't mean you're currently a failure, or are failing.


And again, you're talking about what you plan to do IN THE FUTURE, not how you measure the past.


You're being too absolute in your POV.  For you, you win the WS or you had a terrible failure of a year.  That's harsh, unrealistic, and certainly not the popular metric adopted to measure a team's success in a year.


Absolutely not true.  Not in sports, not in life.  You can be the best team in the world, and lose.  You can be on that team, that team can play the best game of their LIVES and still lose.  Because the other team, who isn't better than you 99 times out of 100, puts together that one shining moment, through a combination of fate, luck, the planets aligning, etc...and beat you.  That's why sport is so compelling.  That's why they PLAY the games.

There is no such thing as 100% operational, in terms of being "unbeatable".



Case in point, above.

I would say (and most non-pats fans, who were objective and not just laughing at them because they dislike the pats) they had a pretty darn successful season.  They won EVERY game but one....you're going to say that's a complete failure?  Was it a complete success? No.  But it was a successful season.


The problem is, you're defining it too narrowly.  It's not JUST ONE race.  That's the point.

If you were a runner, and you qualified for the Olympics...you'd say you'd achieved some success, right?

You run in the heats at the Olympics and make the finals.  You'd likely say you've been even MORE successful.

You run in the finals, and you come in 3rd.  Are you an abject failure, now?  With a bronze medal?  Having competed against the best of the best?

I don't know how you can say you've failed.  Yes, you might go back to training and work on something...so that at the World's next year you have a better shot at winning. No, you didn't achieve the pinnacle. But you succeeded.  You MADE it to the Olympics, you MADE it to the finals.  You didn't achieve the pinnacle...but you DID succeed.

Look, I'm not trying to dumb down the level of success so that we include everyone.  But the standard in baseball, for EVERYONE else, by EVERY objective measure, is whether a team MAKES the playoffs.  THAT'S a successful season by pretty much any measure.

YOU (and some of the "Yankee Haters") want to change that FOR THE YANKEES  OR YOU want to hold everyone up to this unrealistic, outrageous singular measure that's WAY too harsh.  I don't think that's fair, and I certainly don't think it's reasonable.


Exactly. 

Know what a pinnacle is? It's the highest or culminating point of "something"...an ENTIRE something.   If there is a pinnacle of a mountain...isn't there a MOUNTAIN underneath that highest point? 

So it stands to reason that there is a whole "construct" of success UNDERNEATH that pinnacle.

Have the Yanks, of late, achieved the pinnacle of on the field success?  No.  Are they on the mountain?  Absolutely.



It means you didn't achieve the pinnacle of success.  Not that you didn't succeed AT ALL.


Again, your POV is too absolute.  What's the opposite of full?

Now, what happens if I pour 1.5 cups of liquid into a container that holds 2 cups of liquid?  Is it STILL the opposite of full?

Not to join the debate or anything, just couldn't resist the opportunity to correct a Canadian about hockey.  Messier retired in 2004, ten years after leading the Rangers to the Stanley Cup in 1994. 

As for the topic, David Wells says that he had no respect for Torre because he showed favoritism to any players that he considered his "boys".

Joe's gonna be on Larry King tonight, I gather.  It'll be interesting to see what he has to say.....

They're a professional sports team though, with the objective of winning championships.

Turning a profit is a must if they're to stay in business, but a championships is the apple of their desire.


Then why do teams compete?

Surely its to win something.


So the NFL or NHL don't gain any financial benefit with a salary cap in place?

There is no reason why they can't function successfully with a salary cap in place, it simply boils down to greed at the end of the day, pure and simple.


Even if that is the case, there is still an implicit irony in the fact that a team like the Tampa Bay Rays with virtually no money compared to the Yankees, can come closer to winning a World Series than they have in 7 years.


In terms of franchise value, Toronto and New York are to hockey what the Yankees are to baseball.

Once again, there is an implicit irony in the fact that the most valuable teams would appear to have difficulties in capturing championships on a consistent basis.


And since those 2 cups New Jersey won, they've lost in the Quarterfinals to both the Flyers and Rangers 1-4, and in the Semi-finals against both the Senators and Rangers 1-4 as well.

Obviously some consistency issues there.


I don't see how that's breaking any of the laws of nature.

If the Boston Bruins can make the playoffs 30 years in a row, why can't a team win a championship, or at least be playing in the finals for a championship on an annual basis?


Both the business guys, and the players themselves stand to make even more money by winning a championship though; everyone leaves happy.


Time moves forward, not backwards.

Business owners plan for the future, not the past.


The Patriots have "been there, done that" but they still seem intent on an another championship.

Kobe has "been there, done that" but he seems pretty intent on another championship.


If the management and coaching, plus the willingness to win on the behalf of the players remains in tact, I don't see why repeat victories can't occur.


Even if they're not perfect, they're still the best at what they do, or they wouldn't have won a World Series.


Yeah, miracles can happen on occasion, but statistics would tend to favour 100% operational teams over teams that aren't 100%.


They weren't playing with the sole intention of winning every regular season and playoff game though, their ultimate objective at the end of the day was to win the Super Bowl, which they failed to achieve.

Sure, there was a degree of success to their season in that they won every game except one, but that doesn't change the fact that when the time for the big game came, they ultimately came up short.

You succeeded in competing for the pinnacle, but you still didn't reach the pinnacle.

You're ultimate objective has still eluded you.


Players and owners don't make fat bonuses off of making the playoffs though, they make them by winning championships.

If I owned a team, sure I'd be happy that we made the playoffs, but I'd still want a championship, that is after all the primary objective of the team.


Sure, there are degrees of success under the pinnacle, but the pinnacle is still what's it's all about.

If there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, sure the rainbow is nice, but the pot of gold is still the most alluring attraction.


You achieved a degree of success, but still didn't reach the pinnacle of success.

If I build a house and it only has 3 walls, while still a house in theory, it will need a 4th wall to become structurally sound house.

I may have layed the foundations for a successful house with 3 walls, but it will still need a 4th wall if I am to complete my ultimate objective of building a structurally sound, and 100% complete house.

If the playoffs are the 3 walls of that house, a 4th wall, or a championship is still needed for the team to have completely succeeded, and thus fulfilled its primary objective.


No, the opposite of full is empty.

However, you haven?t succeeded in filling the container to its maximum capacity ;)


Thanks George, my Canadian ancestors would me mortified I flubbed that little piece of hockey trivia :hihi:

Holy DiMaggio.

Pilferk is in such a state of denial, he turned this into an economic debate.  That's when you know things are going bad for your team, when you stop discussing the men who play the game and start talking dollars and cents.

The Yankee business model is bound to collapse.

The new stadium was built at just the right time.  The franchise can use that as a selling point to attract customers.  For the first few years, that will be the Yankees money printing machine.  Obviously, with their current business model and penchant for LOSING, the old stadium would not have met their needs.

But if the Yankees continue to lose, fans will stop attending games and purchasing pinstriped merchandise, no matter how shiny the building is or who the flavor of the year free agent signing is.

Maybe they can be SUCCESSFUL at losing money!  It's a form of success!

Second place is the first loser.

I don't subscribe to the same loser mentality you do.

You call the Patriots season successful?  They lost ONE game, but it was the most important one!  The '05 Steelers lost six games during the season and they won the Super Bowl.  Look me straight in the eye and tell me the '07 Patriots were more successful.

Actually...no he hasn't.  Others have tried.  I've continually pointed out it's NOT about economics...that's rather the point.  I've followed that tangent, though, when "others" try to bring it up.  Thanks for agreeing with me and helping me make my point.


Says the great clairvoyant.   ::)

One season does NOT a penchant make.  Let see what happens THIS year before we start labeling anything as a trend, eh?


Except...well.....I was a fan in the 80's and early 90's....and while they weren't printing money like they are now, they were still doing quite well.  They still were one of the top teams in the league in attendance.  They were still the top team in merchandise sales.  It's a nice theory, but past reality says it may not be true.  Since I'm not clairvoyant, I'm not going to sit here and tell you it's NOT true...I don't know...but history shows it MIGHt not be true.


So you don't view yourself as a success?  I doubt you're top in your field (and that's not meant as a personal knock...just a statistical assumption)....so that must mean you're a complete failure, right?

Wow...that's a tough standard you hold yourself too, eh?

I suspect the truth is:  Your SUBJECTIVE opinion of the Yankees clouds your ability to OBJECTIVELY evaluate their success.

Again, the actual HISTORY here supports ME.  12 straight years in the playoffs, more wins than any other franchise in baseball, etc, etc, etc. 

You have:  Well, they haven't won a WS in 7 years. 

In evaluating succcess, here......the scale seems to be pretty majorly weighted to my side of the argument, dontcha think?  The only way it's NOT is if your ONLY measure of success is who wins the WS or World Championship EVERY YEAR....meaning you view EVERY team but one, each year, to be abject failures.

That's fine..have at it.  But MOST of those objectively looking at things don't adopt that metric.  It's way too harsh and absolute.  It's also pretty unreasonable.

You're certainly entitled to it...but I'm going to disagree.  And it's not remotely like I'm "favoring" the Yanks with that viewpoint...I apply it to every team and every sport.  So what's the issue?


I've never, ever, ever, ever said the above.  I would say the Phillies were more successful this year than the Rays, who were more successful than the Red Sox.  I would say the '05 (and '08-09) Steelers were more successful than the '07-'08 Pats.

But I'd say all 5 teams had successful years.

Now, the Lions, the Jets, the Pats....this year?  All had seasons I would call failures....because they didn't make the playoffs and weren't even in contention for the Superbowl.

Bingo!

I don't need to respond to ANYTHING else because...you just agreed with me.

That's been my point from the get go.

Speaking of A-Rod................




Report: Baseball Star Alex Rodriguez Tested Positive for Steroids in 2003

Saturday, February 07, 2009

NEW YORK ?  Sports Illustrated has reported that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003.

The magazine says in a story posted on its Web site Saturday that the New York Yankees star tested positive for two anabolic steroids. SI cited four unidentified sources.

SI reports that Rodriguez's name appears on a list of 104 players who tested positive for performance-enhancers in a 2003 baseball survey.

Rodriguez declined to discuss the tests when approached by SI on Thursday at a Miami gym. He told a reporter to speak to the players' union. Calls from SI to union head Donald Fehr were not returned.

Rodriguez played for the Texas Rangers in 2003, when he won the AL home run title and MVP award. He was traded to the Yankees in 2004.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,489597,00.html

It sure hasn't been a very good start to 2009 for ole gAy-Rod.  I love it!  Suddenly if he approaches Bonds homerun record, it won't matter quite as much.  He was supposedly clean this whole time, but not so fast.  Wonder what kind of backlash this will have.  History has proven he should suck it up and admit to it.  Those who have, have been forgiven to an extent (Pettitte, Giambi).  Those who haven't have been exiled in the court of public opinion (McGwire, Bonds, Clemens).  So my advice to Alex is admit it, you cheated.  Now let's move on, but I will never forget it.

I just hope they don't catch any Red Sox anytime soon.

Guess A shit load of people once again owe Jose Canseco an apology.

Very true.  He got so much shit for putting out that book and nobody believed him.  I don't think he's been wrong about anything yet though.

Nobody owes Canseco an apology.

What he has done to baseball is just woeful. He should have just let the truth come out on it's own, he doesn't need to be involved in this sort of thing.

On the other side of things, I feel awful obviously as a yankee fan, that this guy did do steriods, I thought he was in fact clean...Guess not.

If Canseco didn't speak up guys would probably still be juicing and ruining their bodies, health, and the integrity of the game.  Baseball wasn't doing anything about the situation on its own before Canseco's book came out, so who's to say they ever would've done anything without it?

Yeah, right.

Everyone knew players were using steroids.  It was common knowledge for two decades.  Did MLB ever do anything about it?

Jose Canseco should go in the Hall of Fame for his part in helping clean up the game.

So here's my purely hypothetical question:

What if he's not guilty?  What if, honest to god, truth be told, the guy never knowingly juiced.....either he got a false positive or somebody (Raph, maybe) handed him a "protein shake" after the game, a week before the testing was done?

What should the guy do?

At this point, "we" (meaning the media and the public) are so gunshy...we pretty much instantly convict the guy.  Listening to the sports news this weekend, and on the radio this morning, you would think that A-rod is public enemy number one.....we're talking Osama Bin Laden levels of outrage here.

All without anything more than an SI article that, quite frankly, is short on details.

So how does a guy proceeed, if he's innocent?

Fight?  Well, given what happened with Roger...I don't think the public will buy it.  They'll look at what happened with Clemens and just assume this is more of the same.  And if the guys been clean since then....a "current" test isn't going to prove his innocence.  And nobody is going to take his word for it.....

Sit back and remain silent?  Everyone is going to just assume he's guilty.  We have Big Mac to thank for that...since he's taken that tact and doesn't want to talk about the past.

So what can the guy do?

Again, this is a hypothetical.  I'm not saying, or assuming, the guy is innocent IN REALITY.  But it's a pretty big "what if" that we're left with......"what if", no matter how you feel about the guy personally, or angry you are at him for playing for the Yanks, or any of the other subjective stuff that makes this all the worse for A-Rod (the most hated player on the most hated team), "what if" he really didn't knowingly do it?  Any ideas?

'Cause I'm at a loss.  Baseball's been so beat up that I thinkthe mistrust is (and with good reason) so incredibly prevalent amongst the fans and media, there IS no way for the "innocent man" to fight back.  Which...lets face it, IS a problem.  At least SOME of those 104 players who had positive tests WERE false positives...we just don't know who, or how many.  Statistically, we KNOW it's true, though.  So if ALL those names come out...at least SOME of them likely really ARE innocent.  And yet every single one of those 104 players will likely face something similar (if less "firestorm-y") to what Arod is going to face now....whether they're guilty or not.

So I ask again:  What can a guy do?

Poor A-Rod if he's the 1/104 that was a false positive and he owned up to it because there was "nothing he could do".  I guess his reputation will get ruined.  The guy who yells "HA!" and slaps the ball out of gloves and chokes during the playoffs and runs around town with strippers while married will have a bad rep.  Poor, poor A-Rod.

Alright, so he's owned up to it (which means he lied in the past, shock!).  I want the other names!

That's not a metric of success.

To sweet, innocent Katie Couric of all people! :rant: :hihi:

The question remains, though:

Hypothetically it's NOT Arod.  It's some other player, not on the Yanks or Red Sox.  And in the hypothetical, he IS innocent and the test IS false.

The question remains:

What does he do?

Nobody really seems to want to think much about that......

Innocent people are wrongfully convicted and executed everyday, the world is an imperfect place.

He tells the truth, but nobody's gonna believe him.  But there's no reason to admit to something you didn't do.  He can say "I know nobody's gonna believe me but I swear on the life of my mother, wife, kids, etc."  But still, no one will buy it.  There's doubt about EVERY MLB player right now.  I honestly thought A-Rod was clean until this weekend, so nothing would surprise me at this point.  This may go away with time but for now the whole era is tarnished.

I can tell u some players who have juiced it up


how bout Andruw Jones? Dude got fat and hit 158 or something last year. U don't go from 40hr to that in one season

Torri Hunter   use to be a speedy CF leadoff type and started belting out HR's left and right



Ill also say Ken Griffey JR

dude just had some crazy injuries that u see guys taking juice get. all those hamstring problems etc...

don't get me started on pitchers

Josh Beckett seems like a roider for some reason

maybe Randy Johnson

Pedro Martinez  he just seemed to lose it also... maybe injuries, maybe something else.

Albie Pujols.

Book it.

OK, but...isn't that a problem?  I mean...I DEFINITELY see that as being a problem.  Because suddenly we've taken a legit concern, a legit problem, and we're starting to enter "witch hunt" territory....where anyone and everyone accused is automatically assumed to be guilty. 

I understand the sport is gun shy.  I understand the "atmosphere" surrounding the sport right now makes it hard to believe anyone, in regards to steroids, about anything:  From testing tip offs to use.

I'm just wondering if there is any way that an innocent player could "win" if falsely accused.  Sounds like you don't think there is......

Not unless they have proof, no I don't think it's possible.

But WHAT categorical proof can you possilby have that you haven't done something....especially something that occurred 6+ years ago?

There can't be evidence of something NOT happening, right?  You can't test someone 6+ years later and say "Yes they did" or "No they didn't".  You can only say they're clean now.

So, in essence, those players are screwed?  Again, I see that as a problem....

There are ways to prove you didn't do steroids.  If no positive test exists and there's not overwhelming evidence and testimony against someone than they'd have a right to defend themselves.  Again, it's another question as to whether people will believe them, and I'm sure more than a few wouldn't.  I agree, it is a problem, but it's not going away.  Baseball brought this on themselves.

one thing is certain...A-Rod never used "performance enhancers"...

in October.  :hihi:

Well if he did he needs to find something better cause it sure hasn't helped him yet.  :rofl:

They hypothetical is:

They're on "the list of names".

They ARE the "error rate"....ie:  They are one of the 5% of expected false positives.

Their name is released.

Now what?

You seem to be saying "They're fucked, there's nothing they can do".

I think that's a problem.  A rather large one.  Especially given people are calling for those names to be released.  Because I actually agree with you:  There's not much of a way to defend themselves, given the current climate (admittedly, brought on by MLB itself) surrounding baseball.

But you can't blame the CLEAN guy for that.  I have a hard time saying "Too fucking bad" to the guy who DIDN'T cheat and tests positive (and I don't know who that might be...only that statistically they exist) , because of the cheats.  Don't you?

Again, my fear is that this becomes a witch hunt......righteous indignation and anger I'm perfectly OK with.  Zealotry, though?  Not so much....

ordered this at Barnes & Noble last week for pick-up in store, said it would take approx. 2-3 days. having to pass the time reading 'Beyond Belief' by Josh Hamilton. not a bad book..