Jump to content

How many WS will the Yankees win in a row this time?


Recommended Posts

I want to say many or a lot. Pinned down to a number I would have to go with 4.

2009

2010

2011

2012

I won't commit to more than that at this point because I am not sure if Mo pitches past the age of 44 or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's not education. It's one side of the the story. You're wasting everyone's time. No one cares, except for the bitter few. It is akin to those still talking about Obama's true birthplace

Really, everywhere on this plant...I mean planet? Damn, I never saw a Red Sox cap in Vietnam...I did however, see that locked NY...

So you were arguing the obvious and made it sound so complex to confuse everyone?

As long as Free Agency remains in baseball, the Yankees have a chance.

History shows us in baseball, if the playing field is leveled, the Yankees successes are eliminated.

Take for instance when the draft was instituted, the Yankees went through one of their more serious droughts.

Thankfully, for the Bombers, Free Agency was instituted, and shortly thereafter championships returned.

Voila! Although George did even mess that up for a time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as Free Agency remains in baseball, the Yankees have a chance.

History shows us in baseball, if the playing field is leveled, the Yankees successes are eliminated.

Take for instance when the draft was instituted, the Yankees went through one of their more serious droughts.

Thankfully, for the Bombers, Free Agency was instituted, and shortly thereafter championships returned.

Voila! Although George did even mess that up for a time.

After spending nearly a half billion dollars of free agents last year, how much more could the have? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as Free Agency remains in baseball, the Yankees have a chance.

History shows us in baseball, if the playing field is leveled, the Yankees successes are eliminated.

Take for instance when the draft was instituted, the Yankees went through one of their more serious droughts.

Thankfully, for the Bombers, Free Agency was instituted, and shortly thereafter championships returned.

Voila! Although George did even mess that up for a time.

http://www.jetnation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83509

Link to post
Share on other sites
You should write a book.

The books have already been written, the facts are there.

Only 8 teams in the American League at the time and one of them was certainly a farm system for the Yankees.

Check the roster for the '61 Yankees sometime, and see where almost half those players came from on that roster.

Edited by Scott Dierking
Link to post
Share on other sites
The books have already been written, the facts are there.

Only 8 teams in the American League at the time and one of them was certainly a farm system for the Yankees.

Check the roster for the '61 Yankees sometime, and see where almost half those players came from on that roster.

Dude I don't care. My favorite baseball team won the World Series this year. What went on 30 years before I was born means nothing to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude I don't care. My favorite baseball team won the World Series this year. What went on 30 years before I was born means nothing to me.

And that is fine.

But trust me when I tell you that there are plenty of those young fans who do care (27!, 27!, 27!), who have no idea how slanted things were even then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And that is fine.

But trust me when I tell you that there are plenty of those young fans who do care (27!, 27!, 27!), who have no idea how slanted things were even then.

Here's the sad part to me about this nonsensical argument. You act as if the Yankees have been doing something wrong, like they've been cheating or breaking some rule to make themselves good.

The Yankees were successful in the 30s, 40s and 50s because they were the first team to set up a national scouting network. The fact that you spin this as a negative is laughable as it revolutionized the game FOR THE BETTER.

The fact that you and your ilk constantly spin the Yankees wisely allocating their resources and having it result in success on the field as a bad thing is pathetic. They should be applauded for it, not demonized. This is America the last time I checked. The point is to win.

Ask the owners of the KC Royals if the Yankees are bad for baseball when his attendance increases by 30% whenever they come to town.

Over the last decade and a half, after returning from a strike/lockout that could have killed the game for good, baseball's attendance has soared to record levels and TV ratings are up across the board. How, exactly, are the Yankees "bad" for baseball when they've been the dominant team in that stretch?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the sad part to me about this nonsensical argument. You act as if the Yankees have been doing something wrong, like they've been cheating or breaking some rule to make themselves good.

The Yankees were successful in the 30s, 40s and 50s because they were the first team to set up a national scouting network. The fact that you spin this as a negative is laughable as it revolutionized the game FOR THE BETTER.

The fact that you and your ilk constantly spin the Yankees wisely allocating their resources and having it result in success on the field as a bad thing is pathetic. They should be applauded for it, not demonized. This is America the last time I checked. The point is to win.

Ask the owners of the KC Royals if the Yankees are bad for baseball when his attendance increases by 30% whenever they come to town.

Over the last decade and a half, after returning from a strike/lockout that could have killed the game for good, baseball's attendance has soared to record levels and TV ratings are up across the board. How, exactly, are the Yankees "bad" for baseball when they've been the dominant team in that stretch?

They're not.

They are however, just completely devastating to what is left of the egos of sad, pathetic Yankee haters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as Free Agency remains in baseball, the Yankees have a chance.

History shows us in baseball, if the playing field is leveled, the Yankees successes are eliminated.

Take for instance when the draft was instituted, the Yankees went through one of their more serious droughts.

Thankfully, for the Bombers, Free Agency was instituted, and shortly thereafter championships returned.

Voila! Although George did even mess that up for a time.

History also shows us that the Mets can't win consistently under any type of system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the sad part to me about this nonsensical argument. You act as if the Yankees have been doing something wrong, like they've been cheating or breaking some rule to make themselves good.

The Yankees were successful in the 30s, 40s and 50s because they were the first team to set up a national scouting network. The fact that you spin this as a negative is laughable as it revolutionized the game FOR THE BETTER.

The fact that you and your ilk constantly spin the Yankees wisely allocating their resources and having it result in success on the field as a bad thing is pathetic. They should be applauded for it, not demonized. This is America the last time I checked. The point is to win.

Ask the owners of the KC Royals if the Yankees are bad for baseball when his attendance increases by 30% whenever they come to town.

Over the last decade and a half, after returning from a strike/lockout that could have killed the game for good, baseball's attendance has soared to record levels and TV ratings are up across the board. How, exactly, are the Yankees "bad" for baseball when they've been the dominant team in that stretch?

Skank Nation again showing they cannot see the forest for the trees. :rolleyes:

What does that small bump do for the Royals in the long run? Little.

It does not close the gap with the other medium to large markets in their division. At best, it is an emergency fund when they are 25 games under .500 and an equally inept team comes to town for an early in the week series and attendance is lucky to hit 10k.

KC sells well for Cards, Sox and Yankee games. As well as when stars like Bonds comes to town, but when a crappy Royals teams plays an equally crappy Mariners team, you can get the $5 tickets and get right upto 1st/3rd baseline seats.

In the end, the Yankees do very little. Yes, there is a bump in TV ratings when they play and visit, but the difference between the Royals and Yankees is not those 3 games a year they visit, but the mamoth tv contract the Yankees have with their own tv network.

Edited by PFSIKH
Link to post
Share on other sites
Skank Nation again showing they cannot see the forest for the trees. :rolleyes:

What does that small bump do for the Royals in the long run? Little.

It does not close the gap with the other medium to large markets in their division. At best, it is an emergency fund when they are 25 games under .500 and an equally inept team comes to town for an early in the week series and attendance is lucky to hit 10k.

KC sells well for Cards, Sox and Yankee games. As well as when stars like Bonds comes to town, but when a crappy Royals teams plays an equally crappy Mariners team, you can get the $5 tickets and get right upto 1st/3rd baseline seats.

In the end, the Yankees do very little. Yes, there is a bump in TV ratings when they play and visit, but the difference between the Royals and Yankees is not those 3 games a year they visit, but the mamoth tv contract the Yankees have with their own tv network.

And the Red Sox and the Braves and the Cubs and the Mets...

Just stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the sad part to me about this nonsensical argument. You act as if the Yankees have been doing something wrong, like they've been cheating or breaking some rule to make themselves good.

The Yankees were successful in the 30s, 40s and 50s because they were the first team to set up a national scouting network. The fact that you spin this as a negative is laughable as it revolutionized the game FOR THE BETTER.

The fact that you and your ilk constantly spin the Yankees wisely allocating their resources and having it result in success on the field as a bad thing is pathetic. They should be applauded for it, not demonized. This is America the last time I checked. The point is to win.

Ask the owners of the KC Royals if the Yankees are bad for baseball when his attendance increases by 30% whenever they come to town.

Over the last decade and a half, after returning from a strike/lockout that could have killed the game for good, baseball's attendance has soared to record levels and TV ratings are up across the board. How, exactly, are the Yankees "bad" for baseball when they've been the dominant team in that stretch?

They actually did cheat in the 50's or 60's..

How did they acquire Clete Boyer? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott this is a bit off topic but I am curious, do you have a small penis?

Please don't answer if you are not comfortable disclosing that information. Thanks either way.

How do you even know I am a man?

And, if I was a man, and had a small penis, wouldn't I look to become a fan of the Yankees, as some sort of compensation mechanism?

Edited by Scott Dierking
Link to post
Share on other sites
They actually did cheat in the 50's or 60's..

How did they acquire Clete Boyer? ;)

He was traded to the Yanks as part of a 13 player deal in 1957 where the Yanks sent 7 players to the Kansas City A's in return for 6 players. OH FOR SHAME!!! Tha Yankees made a trade!!! I am shocked and appalled! :akf:

June 4, 1957: Sent by the Kansas City Athletics to the New York Yankees to complete an earlier deal made on February 19, 1957. The Kansas City Athletics sent players to be named later, Art Ditmar, Bobby Shantz, Jack McMahan, and Wayne Belardi to the New York Yankees for a player to be named later, Irv Noren, Milt Graff, Mickey McDermott, Tom Morgan, Rip Coleman, and Billy Hunter. The New York Yankees sent Jack Urban (April 5, 1957) to the Kansas City Athletics to complete the trade. The Kansas City Athletics sent Curt Roberts (April 4, 1957) and Clete Boyer (June 4, 1957) to the New York Yankees to complete the trade.

http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/boyercl02.php

Those dirty underhanded bastards!!!! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
He was traded to the Yanks as part of a 13 player deal in 1957 where the Yanks sent 7 players to the Kansas City A's in return for 6 players. OH FOR SHAME!!! Tha Yankees made a trade!!! I am shocked and appalled! :akf:

June 4, 1957: Sent by the Kansas City Athletics to the New York Yankees to complete an earlier deal made on February 19, 1957. The Kansas City Athletics sent players to be named later, Art Ditmar, Bobby Shantz, Jack McMahan, and Wayne Belardi to the New York Yankees for a player to be named later, Irv Noren, Milt Graff, Mickey McDermott, Tom Morgan, Rip Coleman, and Billy Hunter. The New York Yankees sent Jack Urban (April 5, 1957) to the Kansas City Athletics to complete the trade. The Kansas City Athletics sent Curt Roberts (April 4, 1957) and Clete Boyer (June 4, 1957) to the New York Yankees to complete the trade.

http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/boyercl02.php

Those dirty underhanded bastards!!!! :rolleyes:

Do you know who advised the A's to draft Clete Boyer, and for what purposes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, Kleck, I will help you:

In John E. Peterson's book The Kansas City Athletics, A Baseball History 1954-1967 has a quote from the colorful Bill Veeck saying, "Until Arnold Johnson died, Kansas City was not an Independent Major League baseball team at all. It was nothing more than a loosely controlled Yankee farm club."

That statement, ladies and gentlemen, from the long term Chicago White Sox owner was the true reality of Kansas City Athletics baseball from the mid 1950s through the early 1960s. Out of the 238 players who played for both the A's and Yankees, a whopping 59 players were exchanged in a series of 16 trades lasting six years. Many of those deals heavily favored the Yankees with a few minor exceptions when the A's actually came out on top.

The roots of this story begins when a wealthy Chicago businessman and Yankee Stadium owner named Arnold Johnson won a fierce battle to purchase the Philadelphia A's from the cash strapped Mack family. In order for Johnson to complete his transaction to acquire the A's, he had to sell his stake in Yankee Stadium.

The A's, at that time, were largely a rundown club of mediocre players with little or no prospects and a bare boned farm system. With the help of his business associates, who were the Yankee co-owners, Del Webb, Dan Topping and Larry Mac Phail, Johnson procured Kansas City as the A's new home. Incidentally, Johnson also owned the Kansas City Blues Stadium, in which was a Yankee farm club for the 18 years prior to the sale.

The Yankees helped facilitate the A's move by giving the Kansas City territorial rights to Johnson and didn't even demand compensation because the Blues were an unprofitable club. Johnson did give the Yankees a sum of $57,000 to help them relocate their Triple-A team to Denver. Johnson then sold Blues Stadium to the City of Kansas City, who in turn, leased it back to Johnson and renamed it Kansas City Municipal Stadium, which became the A's new home. Coincidentally, Johnson had Yankees co-owner Del Webb's construction company rebuild the stadium in order to make it major league ready.

Now mind you, the Major League Baseball owners approved of all of this. Back then, club owners had gentleman agreements between clubs and the Yankees were the most powerful team in all of baseball. Not many people stood in their way. Most people believed Johnson's reasoning for buying the A's was more for investment purposes only and that he really didn't care about the fans in Kansas City. Most thought he'd buy the A's and then try to move them to a more lucrative market in Los Angeles. Also, this was a new time in baseball where people were buying teams, running them down on purpose and them sell them off for a profit. Whatever Johnson's motives were, only he knew, but his history of making horrible deals to weaken the A's leads to the possible conclusion that Johnson planned to run the team down and then move it.

Once Johnson solidified his hold on the A's, the trades with Yankees started off slowly. On March 30, 1955 the A's purchased veteran pitchers Ewell Blackwell, Tom Gorman and first basemen Dick Kryhoski from NY. Then the A's purchased pitcher Lou Sleater on April 28, 1955. The first actual trade occurred on May 11, 1955 when the A's dealt pitcher Sonny Dixon and cash for pitcher Johnny Sain and outfielder Enos Slaughter. The A's made a few more cash deals that season with the Tigers, Indians, Dodgers and Pirates.

In 1956, the A's made three more deals with Yankees, and in one of the deals, they sold their best hitter, outfielder Enos Slaughter, back to the Yankees on a waivers claim on August 25. The A's did score a coup against the Yankees on October 16 of that same year when they acquired outfielder Bob Cerv from the Yankees in a simple cash deal. Cerv went on to become an All Star in 1958, but the Yankees didn't quite forget that deal because they re-acquired Cerv back from the A's in 1960.

On February 19, 1957, the A's made one of their worst deals with the Yankees by shipping three of their best players, pitchers Bobby Shantz, Art Ditmar and bonus baby third baseman Clete Boyer, plus two minor leaguers, for a bunch of Yankee castoffs and older players. Some league officials accused the A's of signing Boyer to a minor league contract and protecting him for two years so they could send him to New York. The league rules for bonus babies back then meant that you had to protect them on your 40-man roster for two years in order for them not be drafted away in the Rule 5 Draft.

On June 15, 1957, the A's again traded one of their best hitters, first basemen Harry "Suitcase" Simpson and two other players for a Yankee brawler Billy Martin and pitching prospect Ralph Terry. Some baseball writers claimed the Yankees sent Terry to the A's so the Yankees could get more seasoning out of him in a non-pressure pitching environment and eventually reacquire him from the A's at a later date, which actually happened two years later.

In 1958, the A's made two more trades with the Yankees. In both of those deals, the A's shipped two of their best pitchers, Duke Maas and veteran Murry Dickson to the Yankees for their stretch run in 1958, receiving little or nothing in return. During the 1959 season, the A's made two of their worst deals to date with NY. On May 26 1959, the A's shipped future 20-game winner Ralph Terry and power-hitting third baseman Hector Lopez to NY for two old pitchers, Johnny Kucks and Tom Sturdivant, and second baseman Jerry Lumpe. Both Lopez and Terry were big contributors to the Yankees success.

On December 11, 1959, the A's traded slugging outfielder Roger Maris, shortstop Joe DeMaestri and first baseman Kent Hadley to NY in exchange for an elder outfielder Hank Bauer, another outfielder in Yankee manager Casey Stengel's dog house, Norm Siebern, and a sore-armed Don Larsen. Maris went on to hit 39 homers for NY in 1960 and broke Babe Ruth's single season homerun record with 61 in 1961 and won the MVP awards for both years.

The 1961 NY Yankees were considered one of the best team ever in baseball and the A's contributed 10 players to that club. Sadly, on March 10, 1960, A's owner Arnold Johnson died at the age of 53 of a brain aneurysm. Soon after, the deals to NY stopped for the A

Link to post
Share on other sites
He was traded to the Yanks as part of a 13 player deal in 1957 where the Yanks sent 7 players to the Kansas City A's in return for 6 players. OH FOR SHAME!!! Tha Yankees made a trade!!! I am shocked and appalled!

Those dirty underhanded bastards!!!! :rolleyes:

I'm not coming here to Yankee bash, but SD is right on this one and the fact that KC became the Yankees' farm team following the sale of the A's by the Mack family.

Just about every other team in the AL was pissed about that trade and for good reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some league officials accused the A's of signing Boyer to a minor league contract and protecting him for two years so they could send him to New York. The league rules for bonus babies back then meant that you had to protect them on your 40-man roster for two years in order for them not be drafted away in the Rule 5 Draft.

This doesn't even explain it that well... the Yankees liked Boyer, but the money it would take to sign him would mean that they'd have to keep him on the Major League roster for 2 years based on the Bonus Rule that had been instituted to keep teams from hoarding talent and stashing them in the minors.

Having a contending team and not wanting to waste a roster spot on a developing 18-year old, the Yankees (apparently) had the A's sign Boyer and keep him on the roster for 2 years. Then, just days before his required Major League service time was satisfied, he was sent to the Yankees as a "player to be named later" in a deal the teams had made 4 months earlier. Boyer then spent 3 years in the Yankees farm system before becoming their regular 3B in 1960.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...