"It is whining because when you state that well known fact, you are assuming that there is a direct correlation to victory for every dollar spent. Truth be told, the top 4 or 5 spenders have just as much a chance as anyone else. There just isn't as big a difference between the best player at a position and the second, third, fourth, or fifth. Then add in statistics on whether they will all play well at a given time, impressive rookies, etc, and it makes it all the more random.
Also, if you are going to be fair, you should point out just as often that Yankees at least get into the post season with their payroll."
This is a response from my post the other day regarding the Yankee payroll. This response is from one of my best friends, but since I don't know if everyone reads the comments sections, I figured I would cut and paste this here and then offer a rebuttal.
If you read my post again, you will first notice that I am not necessarily assuming anything. While it is possible that I implied that possiblity, I believe my buddy inferred that was the message I was presenting. However, to be perfectly clear, my point is larger salary provides more opportunities and insurance for problems throughout the season (underperforming players, injuries, etc. ) It isn't necessarily about the best player at every position, but it allows the Yankees to control their own agenda in terms of roster. In short, the Yankees will never lose a player because he is unaffordable, since they operate without any real budget. They may decide a player is not worth his asking price, but not beyond their means.
Also, in case I have never before stated it, I agree with his point re: making the playoffs. The amount of money the Red Sox spend, to me as a fan, means that any less than a playoff spot (even wild card) is a failure.
Royal Caption Slam - [image: The Duchess of Cambridge was photographed wearing a £300,000 Garrard ring and Cartier watch in Heidelberg, Germany, in July this year] "Heavens, for...
18 hours ago