Joe Torre Releases Book Ripping Steinbrenner, A-Rod

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Well, here's to a SUCCESSFUL YANKEES SEASON!

By your standards, of course.  

Denial.  Thank you for confirming it.

Unable to refute my points but falling back on platitudes!  Thanks for confirming it!!

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.

[AxlsMainMan]

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....

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?

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

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

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?

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.

[pilferk]

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?

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.

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

Which is what you said:

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.

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

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.

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

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. 

[pilferk]

Well, here's to a SUCCESSFUL YANKEES SEASON!

By your standards, of course.  

Denial.  Thank you for confirming it.

Unable to refute my points but falling back on platitudes!  Thanks for confirming it!!

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.

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.   

[AxlsMainMan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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???

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

[pilferk]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

[oldgunsfan]

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.

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.

[AxlsMainMan]

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, 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?"

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.

So two wrongs therefore must make a right?

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?

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?

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.

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.

[pilferk]

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?"

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.

So two wrongs therefore must make a right?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[AxlsMainMan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

That "aside from '94" is a pretty big aside.

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.

The Wings and Devils seem to rule the league, of late, and the "leftovers" mean not MANY teams have won, either.. 

I don't think, based on the evidence I can see, the correlation you seem to be seeing is there, or very strong.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[pilferk]

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

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. 

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I don't see what's so perplexing.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

[GeorgeSteele]

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.

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".

[pilferk]

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

[AxlsMainMan]

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

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.

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.

Then why do teams compete?

Surely its to win something.

So what?  MLB chooses to do things differently because they think it benefits them financially to do so. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe....  So what?

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

Sure, I suppose there are degrees of success, but don't people aspire to be as successful as possible at what they do?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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".

Time moves forward, not backwards.

Business owners plan for the future, not the past.

Or it creates complaceny and a lack of drive since it's "been there, done that". 

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.

By your logic, if you win one year, you should automatically win the next.  It certainly doesn't seem to work that way.

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.

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

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

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".

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

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.

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.

[AxlsMainMan]

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.

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

You're ultimate objective has still eluded you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

No, the opposite of full is empty.

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

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. 

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

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[pilferk]

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

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.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

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