[OT] ALCS: Red Sox vs Yankees

[jbeaber1998]

So, I am a die-hard Red Sox fan, brought up in the Boston area and all.  So, my logic for why the is the "Biggest Game Ever!" is that the Boston media is psychotic.  They blow everything out of proportion, turn on the teams in a heartbeat (hmmm, interesting based on the Lynah Faithful definition).  Fotunately and unfortunately they have short memories.  I think the Sox finally have a GM and owners who will be making good decisions as the Yankees have been for a while (as Adam pointed out).  And, yeah, we're damn excited here, with good reason.  I'm just damn happy to be living in Boston for this, it's been incredible so far....  Let's go Sox!!!  And it will be one doozy of a game tonight.  Well, soon gotta head down to Jillian's for the game....

-J

[Felix Rodriguez]

Adam.. You had me right up until Robin Hood.... HUH?

If Robin Hood lived in the states, and for some bizarre reason liked Baseball, he would likely cheer for whichever team was on the town he lived in.

And on a totally unrelated note: GO SOX!!

[Felix Rodriguez]

Also.. To play devil's advocate on the importance of this game:

1- It is the first 7th game ever in the history of the most bitter rivalry in professional sports*.

2- This is likely the first time ever two pitchers with a combined 9 Cy Youngs face each other in a single elimination game.

3- If the sox win they have the best chance to win a WS in almost a generation. This is clearly the most important game for Sox-Nation since 1986.

 - Felix

* Harvard / Cornell is not professional sports. Thank god.

[nyc94]

That the Yankees of 2003 are not the Yankees of 1999 who were not the Yankees of 1996 doesn't help your argument.  When the Yankees need to fill a hole, the outbid everyone else for the free agents.  They even cut guys loose who still have a few years left, like Tino, because they get a younger, better guy to replace them.  

The question isn't whether we should blame the Yankees for having money but whether all of baseball would be better with more revenue sharing.  I think Robin Hood would watch the NFL.

[Al DeFlorio]

Rich H '96 wrote:

Al DeFlorio wrote:

George Steinbrenner=America?

Lord, let's hope not.

If you read my post again, you'll see my analogy was actually:

George Steinbrenner = George W. Bush
Yankees = America

Unfortunately, Yankee fans don't get to vote, and there are no term limits.  :-(

Actually, I read your post very carefully, but, as you pointed out in your last sentence above, the analogy simply doesn't work.  

We are Americans, so we really have no choice but to "root" for our country--even when it's led by someone we may loathe.  Steinbrenner "owns" the Yankees, and profits from them. We all can make the choice to root against him--and his Yankees.  When the Yankees someday gain an owner who isn't loathsome, we can then all choose to root for them again.



Post Edited (10-16-03 17:50)

[Adam]

Sure, baseball would be better with more revenue sharing if you believe in boring games and a weakened sport overall.

If more revenue sharing occured, teams would likely regress toward the mean.  The Brewers would get better and the Yankees would get worse.  Do I want teams to be more evenly matched?  No; not if it means they will be playing at some AA farm league level.  Boring and bland.

The sport faces enough external challenges from the overhyped NBA to the solid NFL.  And yes, even increasing pressure from the NHL.  Why does it need to canibalize itself?

Baseball needs heros and dynasties.  Baseball needs big market teams for people to hate.  Baseball needs small market teams for people to cheer for when the chips are down.  This is what makes baseball great.  The ability to take a random Wednesday afternoon in July off from work, go to the ballpark, and scream your lungs out against those Damn Yankees or those Cursed Red Sox.

Tell me, would the above seem as enticing if the Brewers were coming to town in first place?

[Greg Berge]

Hmm, big market fans don't like revenue sharing and just happen to have well thought out theories to explain it?  Wow.

[marty]

Guess who had World Series painted on their decrepit old wreck of a field?

[DeltaOne81]

Go Marlins ;-).

[DeltaOne81]

Sure, baseball would be better with more revenue sharing if you believe in boring games and a weakened sport overall.

Yeah, cause the NFL has no appeal ::rolleyes::

[nyc94]

You don't give a single reason as to why the games would be boring and the sport weakened.  Even with equal payrolls (which I'm not suggesting) there is no evidence that all teams are going to be tightly clustered around .500.  Maybe over a decade things would even out but in any season, someone is going to be good.  As someone mentioned earlier, GMs can make a huge difference.  And the level of play would not be AA because the best players would still rise to the majors.  That's like saying the NFL has degraded to the college level.

And the NFL doesn't seem to be suffering a ratings slump without a dynasty in the last decade.

And yeah, if the Brewers were in first and my team in second, it would be exciting.  If the Yankees come to town and I live in Detroit, would I bother going?  No.

[Keith K \'93]

The NFL has problems in my mind, but it's the way the cap works and the amount of player movement that's the issue, not the revenue sharing.  The rules make it very difficult to maintain a good team - you can usually only keep a great squad together for a couple of years.  this is a problem for me because it doesn't reward player development and good draft picks.

Baseball definitely needs more revenue sharing (I'm wearing a Yankee jersey right now).  But whatever else you want to say about George, he wants to win badly and is willing to spend lavishly to get there.  This isn't a bug, it's a feature.  The other option under the current rules is to have him pocket $100 mil a year and only spend $80.  As a Yankee fan taht would be far worse...

The Giambi and Mussina deals in the last few years have helped people forget that the foundation of the recent Yankee run has NOT been free agency and buying players.  In fact, a few games ago the Yankees had home grown players at six of nine positions in the lineup (Posada, Johnson, Soriano, Jeter, Rivera, Williams) plus a home grown player on the mound (Pettite).  The only important free agent in the '96-'99 period was Mike Stanton.  The team was built on a foundation of home grown players.  Money came in to play because the Yankees could afford to keep all of these guys, not lose them to free agency.  Is it fair to fault them for that?  (Yes, there were a couple of money based trades involved - Knoblauch, Nelson and Martinez in particular).

[rhovorka]

Al DeFlorio wrote:

Actually, I read your post very carefully, but, as you pointed out in your last sentence above, the analogy simply doesn't work.  

We are Americans, so we really have no choice but to "root" for our country--even when it's led by someone we may loathe.  Steinbrenner "owns" the Yankees, and profits from them. We all can make the choice to root against him--and his Yankees.  When the Yankees someday gain an owner who isn't loathsome, we can then all choose to root for them again.

Well Al, I respect your right to reject my analogy, but I really don't think anyone should take it very literally.  ("oh yeah?  Then who is Colin Powell in your analogy, Rich?  And Jaques Chirac or Saddam?")  I made it to give Yankee-haters a different perspective.  I've encountered so many people who have crossed the line from simply disliking this team to actually calling them "evil," and from that wondering how anyone could root for something so evil.  Well, for perspective, I think we can all relate to that situation as Americans.   To respond to your comments, my Yankee fandom is so deep, that I really have no choice but to root for them...I can't help it.  So for me, the analogy holds.  :-)

To another topic, a big proponent of an intelligent revenue-sharing plan.  I can't tell you how jealous I, as an MLB fan, am of the NFL plan.  However, the plan must force the teams receiving cash to use it to invest in their teams, not to gold-line Carl Polhad's pool at his mansion.

Bill '94 wrote:
That the Yankees of 2003 are not the Yankees of 1999 who were not the Yankees of 1996 doesn't help your argument. When the Yankees need to fill a hole, the outbid everyone else for the free agents. They even cut guys loose who still have a few years left, like Tino, because they get a younger, better guy to replace them.

Sorry, but the Red Sox play this game too.  When their bullpen was in shambles in June, Epstein began a complete overhaul in mid-season.  When Jose Awfulman was their only option at 2B, they cut him free and plugged the hole with Todd Walker.  They did the same with Johnny Damon.  Yankee GM Brian Cashman faced the Wrath of George for losing both Ortiz and Sauerbeck in the past year.  In recent years, the Sox outbid a certain team in the Bronx for Pedro, Manny, and Ortiz.  They also (reportedly) offered more money to both Giambi and Mussina.  They tried to lure Bernie Williams with more money, but he decided to stay put with a "hometown discount."  Boston was desperately trying to sign Contreras to a similar contract the Yanks eventually got him at, but failed when the Yankee reputation in Latin America won out.  And Lucchino calls the Yankees an "Evil Empire" when his team is trying to do the exact same thing??  It's really the Rivalry that drives both teams' Free Agent pursuits, and no other division has that 2-team competition.  Watch all the Free Agent rumors.  If one of the 2 is interested, the other comes into play just to try to block it.  Other teams know that and exploit it in negotiations "Hey Cashman...Star Player Y is available, but I'm thinking of accepting Epstein's offer."  In a sense, the Red Sox should be as much to blame for the payroll disparity crisis as the Yankees.  But the Sox are lovable losers, so the media just installs a double-standard against the Yankees instead.

As far as the amazing ALCS...Wow.  Sox players were mouthing off big at the end of the regular season (which is interesting coming from a team that finished 6 games back in 2nd place) so I have a lot of material I could use to rub in....but I have more respect for this version of the Sox now.  Man, what a tough team.  Glad to see that the Sox finally realized that it's not just having the superstars...it's who you surround them with that really counts.  It's a fun team, and they gave the citizen's of Red Sox Nation one great ride.  I know it's painful, and some of the fans might not come back to this thread.  But I'm glad we were able to share some good series banter.

As a Yankee fan, this feels like the 2003 ECAC Final.  As a Sox fan, this must feel like the 2002 ECAC Final.

[Section A]

It feels worse than the 2002 ECAC final; I was only a freshman at that point, but nevertheless, it had only been five years since Cornell won the ECACs anyhow.

And 5 years for a Sox fan is so unbelievably short.

[dsr11]

Alright, so as a frustrated Red Sox fan (yet again), doesn't hockey season start soon? :-)