I mean, the Braves aren’t exactly a poor team, but they couldn’t hold onto Furcal either (first example that popped into my head)… That wouldn’t have been a problem with the Yankees ability to spend.

but those were good, competetive times that never sniffed the playoffs… in fact never got about 3rd place from what I recall.

They won four titles- 96, 98, 99, and 2000. They didn’t win every title in the decade, no, but come on- what other team has ever gone 4-5, including three straight? Buying a championship, like any strategy, is not infallible. But the evidence is staggering that it worked better than everybody else’s plan, which is just sickening. Takes the heart and soul out of the game.

The Red Sox won twice in a span of 4 years by spending about $80 million less per year than the Yankees, which proves massive spending is not the ONLY way to build a strong team, but the Yanks have still made the playoffs every year this decade except last year, which is four chances more than Boston got. They spend their way to the postseason virtually every year. Shrink their payroll- take away Burnett, CC and Tex last offseason- and see how well their chances of getting in again go. For sake of argument, split Tex and CC between Anaheim and Boston, I don’t care which goes where, and (even though I was, and still would be, staunchly against adding him) assume the Braves would have gotten Burnett instead of losing him to NY. Then see how things play out when the talent gets spread around more and the Yankees have to fight and scrap their way to victory just like everybody else.

And don’t bring the Mets into this- they have an inability to bring in FO personnel who know what the hell they’re doing. Steve Phillips was one of the worst ever years ago, and Omar Minaya threw $36 at Oliver Perez last year. They spend a ton of money like retard monkeys would, not by investing in the top talent, so they’re a bit of a nonfactor. Their fans have every reason to be pissed at them for not knowing what they’re doing and putting a crappy product on the field, but the Mets’ actions aren’t harming the game the way Yankees’ are.

It’s their own damn fault. They could’ve avoided that if they didn’t like being the rich kid on the block. Think about it- if they spent equal to the mets, the next guys down, that’s what, $70 million in payroll alone they cut from the bottom line? Plus all the tax and revenue sharing money they would not thus have to give up for spending so much on the payroll? If they spent themselves into the red it’s their own doing so they can cry me a river.

And the last time I checked, they’re supposed to be worth better than a billion dollars. I’m sure they’ll fine.

I’m sure there’s something to be said for Loria giving the Marlins the Major League routine, and by that I mean it’s not exactly a respectable business practice I’ll give you that. But given a choice between the two, I’d take what he’s doing over what the Yanks are doing everyday of the week and twice on Sunday for three reasons- he’s not driving up the prices of the most talented free agents, hogging the big-name talent or creating such a gap between his spending and everyone else’s that the rest of the league can’t keep up. MLB owners have to approve the sales of teams, maybe next time they’ll vet the purchaser better and not let anymore slimeballs like Loria run teams just to pad their pockets. At the end of the day, an owner who lowballs his payroll hurts his own team the most, but the owner that pisses thousand dollars bills all over the place and leaves the rest of the league in his dust eliminates any chance that those other teams have to get a fair shot at competing.

And thanks for bringing up the Marlins payroll- the fact that the Yankees will pay their roiding third baseman more than it takes to pay an entire team just serves to prove my point. They are so far, so MASSIVELY far ahead of everyone in payroll that it creates a competitive imbalance and an inability of other teams to keep up with them on the field. Period. No amount of rationalizing will detract from the fact that the Yankees are buying a championship, while everyone else has to sit back and wonder what could have been if they had similar resources.

A steroid – enhanced Barry Bonds brought more revenue than a clean one, or a clean Chipper Jones, but which helped the game more? In fact, Barry Bonds’ juicing almost irreparably harmed the game as a whole. My point is that, even if something brings in revenue, it doesn’t mean it is good for the game as a whole.

The Yankees payroll is like a player on steroids in that way. The fact is that superstars like Sabathia, Texeira, Jeter, and A-Rod are few and far between (in A-Rod’s case, almost one of a kind). Most teams are lucky to have one such player. But like a juiced athlete, they have a competetive advantage in that they buy any number of those players.

Does it work every time. Certainly not. Just like plenty of ballplayers took roids in that era and never reached even star level status, the Yankees will not always win the World Series, and some years may not even make the playoffs for one reason or another. But it certainly helps, and most of the time, as we have seen over the past 2 decades, it will work.

I am not saying I know the solution to this problem. Salary caps seem, to quote an un-named famous person whom I happen to admire (don’t want to bring other things into a baseball discussion), taking a hatchet to the problem when a scalpel is needed. Clearly, the problem is at both ends of the spectrum. Loria is the opposite problem of the Steinbrenners – he won’t put up the money for a competetive team even when given the resources to do so, not to mention the resources already at his disposal. But clearly something needs to be done.