Can a World Series be Bought?

by SocalAngelFaninOC on Nov 2, 2007 10:41 AM PDT

Let's take a look....

Take a look at payrolls for the top paying teams both during and after the NYY won 4. As their payroll went up, their success went down. In fact, the year we won, we didn't even make the top 10!..So, the question is, will Reagins and Sosh believe paying A-Rod the equivalent of California's GDP be productive??

1996

Yankees - 53 million
Orioles - 49 million
Braves - 48 million
Indians - 46 million
White Sox - 42 million

1997

Yankeees - 60 million
Orioles - 55 million
White Sox - 55 million
Indians - 55 million
Braves - 51 million

1998

Orioles - 71 million
Yankees - 64 million
Braves - 60 million
Indians - 60 million
Rangers - 55 million

1999

Yankees - 89 million
Rangers - 82 million
Braves - 76 million
Indians - 74 million
Red Sox - 72 million

2000

Yankees - 93 million
Dodgers - 91 million
Orioles - 84 million
Braves - 83 Million
Red Sox - 82 million

2001

Yankees - 113 million
Red Sox - 110 million
Dodgers - 110 million
Mets - 94 million
Indians - 93 million

2002

Yankees - 126 million
Red Sox - 109 million
Rangers - 106 million
Diamondbacks - 103 million
Dodgers - 95 million
Mets - 95 million
Braves - 94 million
Mariners - 81 million
Indians - 79 million
Giants - 79 million

2003

Yankees - 153 million
Mets - 118 million
Braves - 107 million
Dodgers - 106 million
Rangers - 104 million

2004

Yankees - 185 million
Red Sox - 128 million
Angels - 101 million
Mets - 97 million
Phillies - 94 million

2005

Yankees - 209 million
Red Sox - 124 million
Mets - 102 million
Angels - 98 million
Phillies - 96 million

2006

Yankees - 195 million
Red Sox - 121 million
Angels - 104 million
White Sox - 103 million
Mets - 102 million

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.

Tweet Comment 43 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

1997 Marlins

check it out

by Ty Webb on Nov 2, 2007 11:25 AM PDT reply actions

Good job

I was about to make the same comment.

by RH15 on Nov 4, 2007 3:14 PM PST up reply actions

kinda sorta

You can buy a trip to the playoffs. That's easy.

The playoffs themselves are a crapshoot. You are, in principle, buying a championship by spending enough money to make the playoffs every year, and eventually getting lucky.

East coast bias

by Carl Johnson on Nov 2, 2007 11:26 AM PDT reply actions

YES! CRAPSHOOT! AMEN!

The Hunt for a Red October ...and please keep telling Clutch to chill!

by cardinalwraith on Nov 2, 2007 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions

stretch

so, your rationale for NOT getting A-Rod is this: if the Angels DO get him, they'll have a higher payroll, which means they'll have LESS success.

while your observation is fascinating, i think it's pure coincidence. there are too many more important factors for success than to try to make a direct cause-and-effect connection between payroll and wins/success.

this is a stretch.

by yeswecan on Nov 2, 2007 11:49 AM PDT reply actions

Not at all my point....

In fact, I am in FAVOR of signing A-Rod for 8-10 years at up to $275 - 300m (ouch!)

I was merely showing everyone, that despite what we have all read for the last 7 years, NY has NOT "bought" a WS!

by SocalAngelFaninOC on Nov 2, 2007 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions

They did however

buy 4 of the previous 5 before this 7 year drought. And they bought themselves the playoffs for 12 straight years. And in 2 those last seven years where NY hasn't "bought" a title, Boston has by spending considerably more than any other team besides the Yankees.
It's no accident the Red Yanks got very competitive once they became what they always hated.

by thehasegawaexpress on Nov 2, 2007 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions

He actually made his point

and your line "there are too many more important factors for success than to try to make a direct cause-and-effect connection between payroll and wins/success" confirms that you agree that there actually is little correlation between payroll and championships.

Signing A-Rod guarantees nothing (except that beers will cost more).

by The Clyde on Nov 2, 2007 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions

it guarantees

protection for vlad.

"it's mind-bottling."

by retrohalo on Nov 2, 2007 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions

dude

Protection is mostly crap. Vlad's slugging percentage would not go up, he would only be walked less.

by elricsi on Nov 2, 2007 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Tell that to Ortiz

Mike wants some slugging and so do I.

by hauldog on Nov 2, 2007 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Baseball Prospectus

Did a lengthy study in which they showed that the concept of protection basically means squat.

Though having a power hitter behind Vlad would force pitchers to reduce the IBBs against him, which could in turn increase his offensive production. But who protects the guy protecting Vlad?

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Nov 5, 2007 8:52 PM PST up reply actions

Second base.

An empty second base protects the guy protecting Vlad. Nobody wants to go from zero to runner in scoring position with no outs obtained from the offense.

Loss, Loss, Loss, Win, Win, Loss, Loss, Loss, Loss

by Stirrups on Nov 6, 2007 2:55 PM PST up reply actions

all true

but i'm also a believer in the well-tested theory that the better players you have, the better your chances of success are.

signing a-rod guarantees nothing, but i would bet that signing him makes the angels a better offensive team. and that's why i'm for it.

by yeswecan on Nov 2, 2007 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Isn't there something to be said,

though, for having not just a healthy clubhouse but a fired up one? The Yankees are the perfect example: they had talent and chemistry when they were winning in the 90s. They replaced the chemistry with more talent and haven't won anything since. Boston has probably the best chemistry in all of baseball right now and they just won there 2nd title in 4 years. The Angels' chemistry kept us in every game when we won in '02.

Maybe adding A-Rod will have a positive effect (he and Vlad might become a west coast Ortiz/Ramirez) but based on his history that would be pure speculation. Every quantifiable metric on A-rod says sign him and every intangible says don't even let the thought into your head. I hate to invoke Jim Rome but A-rod is just bad Karma.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Nov 2, 2007 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions

It's beating a dead horse at this point

but those mid-late 90s Yankees had better, younger pitching than the 21st century versions. That's the difference.

Chemistry is vastly overrated. It's a byproduct of winning, not vice-versa.

by jjackflash on Nov 4, 2007 11:22 PM PST up reply actions

chemistry means something

but chemistry is overrated, particularly in a more individualistic sport like baseball.

not signing a-rod solely based on chemistry is lunacy.

by yeswecan on Nov 5, 2007 11:43 AM PST up reply actions

How about

not signing A-Rod because his baseball skills don't make his teams any better? Then you can throw in the fact that he is a lousy teammate. What you are left with is a waste of a LOT of money.

The title of this thread is Can a World Series be bought and the consensus seems to be no, a playoff berth can be bought but not a World Series. This is already a playoff team with a few injuries that should be taken care of this off-season (GMJ, Rivera, Colon, Vlad) and a few small holes (middle relief) that that need to be shored-up. We don't need A-rod and going after him is nothing more than greed just as it was when the Yankees did it.

Lunacy is thinking that having A-Rod in the on-deck circle will make the one pitch Vlad sees 'better'.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Nov 5, 2007 8:11 PM PST up reply actions

a-rod made the yankees better this year.

"it's mind-bottling."

by retrohalo on Nov 5, 2007 10:10 PM PST up reply actions

So we should look forward to 2010 then?

That's an awful lot of money to spend on a guy who can't produce right away. If losing the ALDS 3-1 is better than losing 3-0 then I guess there just isn't room for discussion: sign him yesterday!

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Nov 6, 2007 5:56 AM PST up reply actions

you're reaching

A-Rod is not the direct cause of the yanks losing in the playoffs.

might as well say Vlad is the reason the angels got swept in the first round. it's just not true.

by yeswecan on Nov 6, 2007 11:02 AM PST up reply actions

How many times

are people going to say this about A-Rod?

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Nov 6, 2007 8:19 PM PST up reply actions

until proven wrong

show me ONE TIME in baseball history that a single player singlehandedly lost an entire season for a team. there are 9 players on the field, and until one player plays every position and bats in every spot in every game, it's just impossible.

by yeswecan on Nov 7, 2007 10:31 AM PST up reply actions

Darin Erstad, LAA 2006

I predict Ersty and Percy will succeed Hatcher and Butcher. I'm just curious what this will do to jimmuscomp.

by Bilko 420 on Nov 7, 2007 11:32 AM PST up reply actions

wha?

his baseball skills dont help this team? a 3rd baseman who hits for power and average, can steal bases and plays solid defense?

what are you smoking again?

colons not coming back. gmj had become offensively useless long before he was injured, vlad's back and legs arent gonna get any better. GA is gone after this season. whos providing offense for this club again? how long can this team lean on an aging vladimir guerrero? howie kendrick and casey kotchman arent going to be carrying any teams on their own, i can assure you that.

im sorry but youre rationale doesnt make any sense to me. i can understand people not being crazy about the contract(who is?) but to say he wouldnt help this team is probably the most exaggerated, trying-to-dupe-yourself comment ive ever heard.

by ihearhowie2.0 on Nov 5, 2007 10:50 PM PST up reply actions

A-Rod fixes all that?

Wow, I knew he was good but I didn't realize he was THAT good. Maybe we should put ourselves in the shi##er for the foreseeable future in order to go 3 and out in 2008.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Nov 6, 2007 5:51 AM PST up reply actions

again, reaching

the angels need more power, and they need a 3B. A-Rod is both, and he excels at both.

$350M? who cares? if arte wants to fill 2 major gaps in this lineup with a revenue-generating superstar, then he can do it. i'll pay $8 for a beer, if that's what it's gonna take.

by yeswecan on Nov 6, 2007 11:05 AM PST up reply actions

Use New Math

Don't fall into Danaheim's payroll trap.

ARod's offense potentially costs the Halos a net of $4 million over the 2007 payroll, not adjusted for inflation. And the people he replaces at that payroll load have had very, very little benefit for the Angels the past couple of years.

Who in their right mind would not want 54 home runs, 150RBIs, 150 to 160 games played per season (meaning injury free), a perennial League All-Star, a probable 3-time League MVP, a future HOF, and a proven Gold Glove shortstop, all for $4 mill???

For the Angels, ARod is the $4 Million Man. As popular as the team was last year, there is still plenty of room to grow on the ticket, concessions and marketing front without raising any prices, and recoup that $4 million.

Loss, Loss, Loss, Win, Win, Loss, Loss, Loss, Loss

by Stirrups on Nov 6, 2007 3:05 PM PST up reply actions

I haven't cared about a team's payroll

since Wally went to KC for nothing more than $$$.

I just don't see A-rod improving this team. He's had 3 opportunities to do this and he has failed 3 times. We ARE a perennial playoff team and all he will do, I think, is keep us a perennial playoff team. There have to be better options then just the guy with the gaudiest stats.

The questions are:

Will he make money for this team?
and
Will he make this playoff team a championship team?

My answers are yes and no and I only care about the 2nd question.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Nov 6, 2007 8:17 PM PST up reply actions

There's no such thing as a single player...

...who makes a participant, in a team sport, a champion. There are only those who make a team worse, those who have no impact, and those who make them better. If you don't care about money, your arguments only hold water if you believe ARod makes a team worse. Having no impact at all, or having a positive impact, would be nothing to argue about.

So by what reasoning can you argue that adding 50HR's and 150 RBIs in a single stroke is something that would be a net negative for the Angels?

Loss, Loss, Loss, Win, Win, Loss, Loss, Loss, Loss

by Stirrups on Nov 6, 2007 8:49 PM PST up reply actions

Tha's been my point.

If we win 100 games and lose in the ALDS again, are we better? No, we're the Yankees and that would suck.

This team is already good enough to compete for the playoffs. A-Rod can't help this team BECOME that. What he CAN do is alienate his teammates, throw them under the bus in the press, undermine his manager, make other players have to respond to a hostile questions about not being awesome, etc. In that way he makes this team worse.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Nov 7, 2007 7:34 AM PST up reply actions

let's see some proof

show me where he's done all those terrible things, and while you're scrounging up someone's I Hate A-Rod blog, i'll point you to the numbers he put up last season and throughout his career.

if you don't think those numbers can help the angels, then you are out of your frigging mind.

by yeswecan on Nov 7, 2007 10:27 AM PST up reply actions

Those numbers have never won him anything.

I'll go back to my original argument: we need guys who want and know how to win. A-Rod has not and I don't think will ever be one of those guys.

A-Rod did all those things when he was with the Yankees. Those teams had possibly the most talent of any in the history of baseball. A-Rod's phenomenal numbers and his piss-poor attitude did not help them win any titles and they won't help us win any either.

He's not Reggie Jackson, he's not Joe Carter, he's not Curt Schilling. He's Barry Bonds, he's Jose Guillen, he's Gary Sheffield.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Nov 7, 2007 11:30 AM PST up reply actions

still no proof from you

on your ridiculous logic, the angels should therefore get rid of Vlad because he hasn't won any titles.

obviously you've got a bone to pick with rodriguez, because you're pulling phantom logic out of your ass.

by yeswecan on Nov 7, 2007 12:11 PM PST up reply actions

Barry Bonds

Raked in the 2002 WS.

Mike wants some slugging and so do I.

by hauldog on Nov 7, 2007 12:14 PM PST up reply actions

Beat this dead horse

It is obvious you hate A Rod.

Again he is not a pointguard, this isn't the NBA.

Also the Yanks do not make the playoffs if there is no A Rod

Mike wants some slugging and so do I.

by hauldog on Nov 7, 2007 11:33 AM PST up reply actions

Wrong logic

Angels have had the most consistent success of any period in their franchise the last few years. The last few years have also been the years when the angels have had their highest ranking payrolls. Spending money does result in more success unless teams spend their money unwisely.

The reason the Yankees have raised their team payroll and seen a decline in success is because they have made bad investments. They have spent this money on players like Kevin Brown, Jason Giambi, Rodger Clemens (2007), and other wastes of money. The angels signing a-rod would hardly be a waste of money and in fact it would actually be the best way the team could spend its money.

Also California's GDP in 2004 was 1.5 Trillion, not 350 million or what ever a-rod is going to get signed for.

by BoulderBrian on Nov 2, 2007 2:34 PM PDT reply actions