During my 24 hour ban I did a little research on this subject.
I find it interesting that no one questioned the discrepancy between the two teams that made it to the World Series in 2007.
The Boston Red Sox had a payroll of 155.4 million as opposed to their opponent in the World Series, the Colorado Rockies whom had a 61.3 million dollar payroll. Does anyone see this as being unfair and likely the reason the Red Sox swept the Rockies in the 2007 World Series? The Red Sox spent more than double the Rockies. Canít the same argument be made against the 2007 Red Sox as is being made with the 2009 Yankees? How could the Rockies ever compete with a team that dwarfed their payroll as the Red Sox did. Where was the outrage and call for leveling the playing field in 2007? Obviously the reason is that Boston was a feel good story at the time and had just won their second championship in three years after an 86 year drought, but doesnít the fact still remain that Boston bought their championship in 2007?
If youíre wondering how much the Yankees spent in 2007 and how their season ended, they spent 218.3 million and lost in the first round of the playoffs to Cleveland. Boston was ranked number two for having the highest payroll for the 2007 season.
I realize Iím talking to a bunch of Yankee haters who probably wonít agree with any of this, but I think you can draw a bit of a parallel to each of these situations.
Wirelessly posted (Hivemind: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)
The arguement could be made that the 07 redsix aren't the 2009 Yankees, or the 2007 Yankees, or the 98 Yankees, or the 58 Yankees, or any of the other years of Yankees, thus rendering your arguement plausible, but irellevant, cause fuck the Yankees