justgary- it's true that a different team has won the world series in the last six years. However, how about the fact that the Yankees and Red Sox have finished 1-2 in the AL East in every year that you mentioned (plus '99 and '98)? 8 years in a row with the same team in first place in a division AND the same team in second place. One word: Boring. By the way, it wouldn't be as boring if it wasn't largely (if not wholly) based on the payrolls of these two teams.
There have been 6 different teams win the World Series in the past 6 seasons. There have been 10 different teams make the World Series in the past 6 seasons. There have been 18 different teams make the playoffs in the past 6 seasons. The fact that two teams seem to dominate one of the six divisions isn't really that important. Every other division has had at least 3 different teams make the playoff during that time (the NL West has had 4), including the AL Central, where KC resides. Kansas City has already had their time (making the playoffs 7 times in 10 years). It's the fact that they make terrible roster decisions year after year since then that keeps them (and Detroit) out of the playoffs. Minnesota, Cleveland and Chicago have had similar bad runs, but they've made the playoffs after rebounding. KC doesn't know how to "rebound". Blaming their misfortune and mistakes on the Yankees and Red Sox is just wrong. By the way, it wouldn't be as boring if it wasn't largely (if not wholly) based on the payrolls of these two teams. ...which also explains the playoff dominance of the Los Angeles Dodgers and New York Mets.
Grum, you missed my point. I was only explaining that even though 6 different teams have won the series, the Yankees (and if second place counts, the Red Sox) do keep "winning over and over again" for what has now been 8 consecutive years. And if you say that money has nothing to do with the Yankees success, than you're in some serious denial. I never made any point about the rest of major league baseball, which is what your entire post was about.
DudeDykstra: Yankees and Red Sox have finished 1-2 in the AL East in every year that you mentioned (plus '99 and '98)? 8 years in a row with the same team in first place in a division AND the same team in second place. One word: Boring. Not to get in the way of your ill-informed rant, but there are still some of us alive from 2003-4 who didn't think it was all that boring.
The bottom line here, is that the AL Central will be the Toughest, most competive division in the MLB this upcoming year
And if you say that money has nothing to do with the Yankees success, than you're in some serious denial. I never made any point about the rest of major league baseball, which is what your entire post was about. If it was only about money, then the Yankees would have won the World Series every year. Or the Red Sox. Or the Los Angeles Dodgers. Or the New York Mets. The Yankees have done well (in the past) because they used money AND smarts to build their teams. Now, they seem to have abandoned the "smarts" part and are going strictly with the "money" part. They were dominating in the late 1990s because they used their brains with the money. The Red Sox and the Yankees have dominated the AL East equally because of brawn (money) and brains. The Blue Jays, Orioles and (most of all) Devil Rays have not been very competitive in the past 6 years because they haven't really been that smart (or were in the part of the development cycle where you aren't competitive just yet). And the only way that the Yankees or Red Sox affect the Royals' chances of making the playoffs is by denying them a shot at the wild card spot. It doesn't stop KC from winning their own division.
the Yankees (and if second place counts, the Red Sox) do keep "winning over and over again" for what has now been 8 consecutive years. You must absolutely hate Bobby Cox, then.
The bottom line here, is that the AL Central will be the Toughest, most competive division in the MLB this upcoming year Unlikely. The Indians and White Sox will be great to good. That's about it.
