Yardbarker Nav Bar

Monday, September 7, 2009

On the sluggishness of Toronto games, and Derek Jeter's big milestone

I am soooo glad the Yankees are done with that Toronto series. Those games were painful to watch, even if the Yankees did win two of them. The games were sluggish, slow, and sloggy. I literally fell asleep watching yesterday's game, it took so long!

So why did the games have such a slow pace? Was it the sloppy defensive plays? The bad pitching? I don't get it.

In other news, with today's day-night doubleheader, it looks like the day Derek Jeter will break Lou Gehrig's all-time Yankee hits record. And several Squawker readers will be in the ballpark today to see it! How cool.

It really is an amazing achievement that Jeter is going to get that record, giving all the baseball immortals who have put on the pinstripes. The fact that Jeter already has more hits than Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and Joe DiMaggio boggles the mind. And now he's about to beat Lou Gehrig.

Jeter is going to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. He will get his number retired, and have a monument to him in Monument Park one day. But breaking the record shouldn't make him MVP, though. Sorry.

On another note, what ever happened to the post-Toronto dressing up the rookies event? Are they not doing it this year?

What do you think? Leave us a comment!

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Every Yankee game is slow and sluggish. Why? That is the edict from your fuhrer, "keep 'em in the ballpark as long as possible so we can sell more beer and popcorn". It's all about the money folks.

Jonmouk71 said...

Yes, it is all about the money - and we're willing to SPEND the money to get the best players to compete and win. This is not "keep'em in the ballpark as long as possible, so I can give the cash to my buddy, Bernie Madoff...." Oh, sorry, can't do that anymore.....

Anonymous said...

So, you're admitting that your team BUYS their trophies? Finally someone has the cajones to admit it, that their team has to outspend all of the other teams just to be competitive.

"...we're willing to SPEND the money..." - you said it yourself. If baseball ever got real and instituted a salary cap, you guys would be so screwed because you wouldn't be able to outspend every other team, and you'd actually have to EARN those trophies, on the field of play and not in the board room! Horrors!!

Jonmouk71 said...

Until there is, if ever, a salary cap in baseball, any team that has the financial clout to obtain the best players, if available, is cheating their fans badly. Would you rather be one of these teams that just takes the luxury tax money and never puts in back into the team to be competitive? I have no fear of a salary cap as long as there is a minimum cap as well so that teams have to spend it or drop out of the league. Your argument is spurious in any case as the Yankees had the highest payroll last year and didn't even make the playoffs. The Mets have had one of the highest payrolls the last few years and have nothing to show for it. It takes the right players, the right management, and yes, it takes luck to win it all. If spending more in lieu of a cap gets the Yankees there to even try to win it all, I'd rather be there then not in the playoffs at all.

Jonmouk71 said...

I did mean previously, of course, that any team that has the financial clout to obtain the best players, if available, AND DOES NOT is cheating their fans badly.

Anonymous said...

ok, now there is a topic where we can agree. Baseball needs a salary cap, and a salary minimum, DESPERATELY!! That will eliminate any talk of cheating, collusion or unfair spending. Let's have 30 evenly matched teams, with similar payrolls and talent, and let the games be decided on the field. Thank you.

Jonmouk71 said...

Unfortunately, I don't think this will ever happen - the players for one don't want it - do they want to change a system where an Ollie Perez or Carl Pavano can get so much and do so little? Do you think Scott Boras wants it? The owners probably wouldn't mind it but the small market teams do not want to be forced to spend a minimum; they want to take the luxury money and run. BTW - I also am in favor of not only a max and min cap but teams should also get a discount if the player came through their farm system from the beginning. For the record, the Mets had three opening day starters like that: Reyes, Wright and Daniel Murphy; the Yankees had four: Jeter, Posada, Gardner and Cano.

Anonymous said...

I think the owners should get used to the idea that priority number one is putting a winning team on the field. With a salary max and min, the small market teams can take their revenue-sharing money and spend it wisely (?) so that they are above the minimum and the large market teams will have to let go of a few players each year to stay below the maximum. This will provide for more talent sharing so that all 30 teams have an equal chance to acquire the big-name talent available each year. And also with every team more or less "guaranteed" to make a profit, ownership will become more accountable to their fans to put a competitive team on the field, and not just run out a team full of AA or AAA players every year, like they do in Cincinnati, Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Baltimore. The fans will know that ownership has no excuse for that type of incompetence, and so should DEMAND results.

Also how about this? In this salary cap/floor scenario, if a team finishes in the bottom half of their division for 5 consecutive years, then they automatically are subject to contraction or a change of ownership. Since ownership would no longer be able to cry poverty, then the only reason for not putting a competitive team on the field would be gross incompetence by ownership (all theoretical I know), therefore ownership would lose their investment in the team. This would put the pressure on ownership to put a competitive team on the field and not just ride the "revenue-sharing gravy train".

This would say to the owners, "you are not here to stuff your pockets, you are here to win games for your fans".

A rule could even be created based on attendance. If a team does not meet certain attendance marks for 5 consecutive years, then that indicates that ownership is not doing enough to promote and market their team, therefore the team would be subject to contraction.

One way or the other, the talent pool has to be made available to all 30 teams, not just the richest teams, and ownership has to be motivated to be "in it to win it".

What say you, squawkers?

Anonymous said...

I thought the rookie dress-up "tradition" was for the last road trip of the year. No?

Jonmouk71 said...

You make some fair points but the participants (owners, players, agents, cities) won't go for it. Incompetence? All teams go through phases like that - the Yankees in 65-69 and 88-93 and the Mets in 75-82. Should the Steibrenners and Paysons been foreced to sell? (On the other hand, Donald Grant should have been canned for letting Tom Seaver go.) An attendance rule smacks too much of Margaret Whitten in the movie Major League, where she stuffed the Cleveland Indians with hasbeens in order to move the team the Miami. In a world where the Donald Sterlings of the world can own the Clippers forever, or Al Davis can run the Raiders into the ground, I don't see changing ownership as doable. And who does this? An act of Congress? They can't even agree on important stuff.

Anonymous said...

I don't mind the complaints about the salary...even tho' the Yankees give plenty in luxury tax to the other teams who do nothing with it ..but..it's amazing how little you heard about the salary when the Yankees didn't do well last year. Once they start winning again ...it's because of the high salary. In the beginning of the season when they were off to a not so great start everyone was in glee ..saying how the biggest salary doesn't gurantee a winner. That sentiment now has reversed and now everyone complains the Yankees win because of the salary.

I'm thankful we had a owner who always wanted to win and put the money into the team. I can only hope his sons follow his example.


In the end it's the team that wins ..not the money. You can spend all you want but if you don't have the right players you aren't going to win as seen in the past 8 years for the Yankees. Low market teams such as the Florida Marlins and Tampa won despite the low salary. It takes more than money ...it takes 25 men wanting to play as a TEAM and ignoring the individual stats. I love this Yankee team ...both the abilities and the personalities. Win or lose ..they will always be My Yanks !!!

As far as a salary cap ..it's not going to happen because the player's union will never let it. Not even worth discussing.

I think Anon is right ..Rookie hazing is the last road trip of the year.

Peggy

Go Yankees 2009 !!!

Realtor from Toronto said...

Yeah, you are so right, the games indeed do seem really slow and kinda boring. Still, the Yankees are the most popular baseball team in the world and there has to be a reason for that, right?

Elli