Talk:New York Yankees/Archive 1

Notion to protect this page from IP addresses

I understand that anyone and everyone can edit Wikipedia, but the majority of vandalism on this page comes from IP addresses and it's annoying as hell. Granted, there are some good contributions from IP's, but if those people really wanted to keep contributing then they would register for a username, a process that takes a mere 45 seconds.

Support. Per nom. --Sportskido8 10:22 EST, 25 August 2006

Steinbrenner vs. Mr. October???

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Steinbrenner usually with Reggie???? It wasn't until his 2nd to last season Steinbrenner started showing any anger.... I think the statement that they feuded during Reggie's entire Yankee career is fraudulant. Reggie feuded with Billy Martin. Steinbrenner really feuded with Yogi Berra.

We need pictures

Eh...I'll try and find some free pictures from other articles or something. If anyone can find some legal ones please add them. --Sportskido8 12:42 EST, 22 August 2006

Famous fans?

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't think this article needs a famous fans section, ESPECIALLY if it contains Christina Aguilera and Carson Daly. Maybe it can go in its own separate article, just like all universities list "famous alumni" in a separate article. --Sportskido8 10:05 EST, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I've discussed this below. Yankees76 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it and I'm adding it back. It's informative and fits perfectly within the section on fan support, as long as it doesn't get TOO big.-66.254.235.231 19:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please add it back in prose form because in a list it just looks bad. --Sportskido8 15:32 EST, 22 August 2006

Don't take it out. It's just fine the way it is (or was) so just leave it. Patsyanks06 14:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Retired Numbers

I really think retired numbers looks better with last names only, and that's why I originally made it that way. Any thoughts on this? Sportskido8 1:33 EST, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yankee records, please fill in player names

And the number of homers, etc. Bona Fides 13:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

i don't have time to do it, but feel free to do it yourself. here is a reliable reference. Kingturtle 14:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Attempt #2 - Another Failure

Guys, I think this article is ready for another nomination. It's been cleaned up extensively since I first put it up for consideration like a month ago. If anything needs to be changed, anything, then do it ASAP. ---Sportskido8 16:15, August 3rd, 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think this will ever be featured. The people who decide this are too picky. We can definitely do away with Quick Facts though, as a start. And can somebody add more references? I don't know where to even look because I didn't write a lot of this. Oh, and splitting the table might be a good idea too. ---Sportskido8 10:54, August 7, 2006 (UTC)

Article Length

This article, while very informative and helpful is around 84 KB long. That was one of the criticisms of the FA-analysis but I'm not sure how much we can cut out of it. I personally don't have a problem with its length because it's the Yankees and there should be a lot written about them. Any ideas? ---Sportskido8 13:35, July 24, 2006 (UTC)

Training Staff

I'm opening this discussion based on my belief that the training staff is a vital role to each organization. Considering people like Gene Monohan actually do sit in the dugout its seems only right that they may be included on this page concerning the Yankees. What do you all think?--Djramey 14:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

New Stadium

Someone should update this page with the information about the new stadium. The team is planning to build a new stadium at the site of the city park next door. In return for this land the team plans to tear down the old stadium and make that into city park land. All the governmental approvals have yet to be gotten. The plan is to have government puick up the costs of infrastructure improvements on land adjacent to the new stadium while the team would pick up all the direct construction costs of the stadium proper. No mention is been made in news reports as to the cost to tearing down and making the old stadium into city park land. John wesley 21:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I'm not sure this is as much a controversy as a simple debate. The Yankees have broken no apparent rules in their spending, and are simply recreating their brand with stars that may or may not be more expensive than others. Having to ultimately pay a luxury tax does not mean the Yankees have broken any guidelines. It is not the Luxury Penalty, it's a Tax.

Further, this page could be listed on a few other teams, but seems to only get mentioned with the Yankees.

Let's recreate this section and talk about it objectively. Start first with a new section head, something along the lines of Luxury Debate.--Djramey 17:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, the author of this section is looking at it objectively...even listing pros and cons...The Yankees pay the highest salary by far, thus why it is only listed for the Yanks,

Met's spending

The previous version was ungrammatical. This is the argument of the Pro section, so a point of view is acceptable. I didn't make up the argument that Fred Wilpon doesn't spend as much as he should and could - that's been suggested by Allen Barra, a nationally syndicated sports columist in this article: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0421,essay,53773,1.html. There's nothing wrong with including that view in this section.~GZ 11/8/05

Yes, the Yankees and Mets share the same market. The Yankees, in terms of championships, are more successful, contrasted to the Mets, so the Mets are "less successful" in that regard. "Could spend at the same level if their owner so chose"? ANY owner (of a team in any market) if s/he so chose, could spend at that level. Main article edited with some compromise. -- Win777 03:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. Small market teams don't have access to the same revenue streams - TV rights, attendance, etc. The Mets are in the same huge market as the Yankees. I'm going to make a further compromise.~GZ 11/9/05

I didn't say that people could reasonably spend at that level and still have money. Anyone could spend outrageously like the Yankees. Whether they have the money (or not) or are in the red (or not) are other issues.

How about the Met bit in that section is eliminated entirely? The "For" is for the Yankees' spending practices, and I don't see how the Mets are involved, other than sharing the market. "New York, as the largest market with the highest revenues, should spend in accordance with their vast resources." covers how the Yankees are able to spend like they do. The section is pro-Yankees and their spending practices; seemingly randomly "it has also been argued that the New York Mets" shows up. The part is about pro-Yankees spending and not pro-Mets'. "New York" encompasses both teams. -- Win777 22:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, some clubs could bankrupt themselves by spending money they don't have. No one is suggesting that they do so. This is how the Mets are relevant, as I see it: using them as an example points out that in some regards the Yankees higher spending is a virtue, because other clubs could afford to spend as much as the Yankees do (and still be profitable) but for whatever reason they choose not to. It reflects Steinbrenner's commitment to winning, which is what you want out of an owner. Read the Allen Barra article - I think he makes a strong case. I'm reverting for now.

---

Many teams COULD spend that much, doesn't Paul Allen own the Mariners????? Ted Turner with the Braves?????? Those are just two examples, Paul Allen has WAY more money than Steinbrenner, Ted Turner too. You are kidding yourself if you don't think these Billionaire owners can't shell out some coin for talent, the truth is they like being a "small-market team" so the owner doesn't have to spend much, and the Yankees, BoSox, ChiSox, and Mets, pay all the bills for them.

Missing Section on 1930s and 40s, DiMaggio

I was wondering why there is no mention in this article of the Yankee teams of the 30s and 40s. Instead, it simply skips from "First Successes," which ends with Ruth's 'Called Shot', to "The 50s and 60s", completely bypassing a significant two decade span in Yankees' history when the Yankees continued to dominate the league and fielded some of the greatest teams in Yankee and baseball history. Perhaps most egregious, there is no mention of Joe DiMaggio. I strongly urge someone, if they have the time, to commence work on a section detailing the history of the Yankees from 1932 up to 1950. Such a section is urgently needed here. --Brian Brockmeyer 23:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at it. It might be too long on POV and too short on facts, but it's a start. Feel free to improve and polish. I kind of like the notion of separating the team into distinctive "eras", provided they make reasonable sense. A 1961 book about the history of the World Series defines the Series eras in a way that almost parallel the Yankees specifically as of that point: The Early Struggles, The Babe Ruth Period, Through Depression and War, and The Casey Stengel Era. Another more truthful but less interesting approach would be to define the eras (the winning ones, at least) by Ed Barrow, George Weiss and George Steinbrenner, the personnel movers-and-shakers. Whatever. d:) Wahkeenah 05:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work. You've linked the Ruth/Gehrig Era to the DiMaggio Era and up to the dawning of Mantle's Yankees quite nicely. I think you've hit it out of the park with this section.--Brian Brockmeyer 06:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Origins

Someone commented "What happened to NPOV?" I've read this and the other revisions, and can't decide whether its too pro or too anti Yankees (and I know which side the authors loyalties lie.) Whats up with it, exactly?

There were several points where there was plenty of opinion, e.g. "... well-paid asses ..." "... a team with heart, ... no heritage ... "

Good call on those. You're right. GWO

"... restored that team to brilliance ..." Also, the word "dominance" seemed to me to be awfully strong. Feel free to edit that back if you feel otherwise. -- Taral

Much as it pains me, I think "brilliance" and "dominance" does fairly describe some periods of their existence... GWO

Excuse me...what's the source for their having started in MINNEAPOLIS? As I understand it,the Yanks were originally the Indianapolis farm team of the Cincinnati Reds,and moved from there to Baltimore. Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2

Trying to track down anything about possible origins Minneapolis, I haven't found anything. Yes the Western League had a team there, but I've seen no evidence so far that that team was moved to Baltimore. -- rbs, 2004-02-09 01:32 UTC

After more reading today, I can't see that the Western League's Minneapolis team became the Orioles/Yankees. A check of the player roster for the 1901 Baltimore Orioles (baseball-reference.com) shows no overlap with the Minneapolis Millers of 1900. Most of the Orioles seemed to have been raided from National League teams (no surprise). Also, a biography of Ban Johnson in the Journal of Sports History simply indicates that the five-year Western League Agreement expired at the end of 1900 and the league simply re-organized, dropping three teams and adding three. Then again (opening a new can of worms) it may be fair to say that the Highlanders of 1903 were not the Orioles of 1901-1902; I could see some sense in arguing that one team simply ceased to exist at the same time as another was established. - Rbs 00:12, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

removal of hyperbole

The article claimed that 26 Championships in 80 years was unchallenged in U.S. sports. Well, the Celtics won 16 championships in 30 years. That is a better rate. Rather than leave the issue up for debate, I removed the claim from the artlce. Kingturtle 09:05, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Andy's Hawkin's Losing No-Hitter

More information is available at the following Retrosheet URL: http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B07010CHA1990.htm. The runs were scored in the top of the 8th on three errors and a walk. colinjohnson 01:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Apiece

Are people incapable of using a dictionary?

  apiece
      adv : to or from every one of two or more (considered
            individually); "they received $10 each" [syn: {each}, {to
            each one}, {for each one}, {from each one}]

FFS . . . Varitek 19:22, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Curse of Clay Bellinger

According to the VfD debate for Curse of Clay Bellinger that article should be merged somewhere here. Here is the complete text, I have redirected that page to this one for the time being, an someone please do the merge in the appropriate place? Many thanks. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added a discussion of theories for the Yankees' lack of world series titles since 2000 to 21st century section, including the "Curse". Will move biographical details for Bellinger to his page User:erall 08:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC).

The Curse of Clay Bellinger is a tongue-in-cheek explanation proposed by sportswriter Larry Mahnken for the New York Yankees' failure to win the World Series since 2000. By analogy with the Curse of the Bambino, Mahnken points to the departure of utility player Clay Bellinger from the Yankee roster following the 2001 season and asserts that the Yankees will never again win the World Series until either they make amends to Bellinger or they win the championship anyway. The tautology is part of the joke.

Bellinger, meanwhile, played for the Greek baseball team in the 2004 Olympics. Bellinger is an American born with Greek grandparents, like most of the rest of the team.

ALS

Does anyone have information about ALS (Lou Gherig's Disease???)

• bostonbabewithbrains

Retired numbers and Mariano Rivera

I know that Mariano Rivera is the last major leaguer to wear number 42, because of the grandfather clause that allows him to continue to wear it even though it is retired on all teams to honor Jackie Robinson, but what if, in the future the Yankees decide that Mariano's career was distinguished enough that he deserves to have his number retired? Would we have a situation like Yogi Berra and Bill Dickey where 2 players have the same number retired? Rogerd 17:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• yes. --Flaunted 17:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Other players on the Yankee roster that will have their number retired as a NYY include Derek Jeter (2), Bernie Williams (51), and Rivera (42). --Djramey 13:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say O'Niell's (21) is likely to be retired as well. He represents a significant period in Yankee history.

This is possible, but in 17 years in the Majors I think O'Neill only played 7-8 with NY. All of which included those run of WS titles and a batting championship. But you are probably right he has a good shot at it. And he is still working for the organization with YES so that doesn't hurt.--Djramey 13:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think retiring O'Neill's number is justified. The only one I can see being added to Jeter, Rivera and Williams would be Torre, but I think they'll need to win a couple more on his watch first.

Interestingly, if that were to happen, the Yankees would have run out of single-digit numbers. --Chancemichaels 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

I doubt O'Neill gets his number retired, but who knows? My buddies and I were discussing it and one thing that I thought was interesting was that if O'Neill was to have his number retired, his 9 years as a Yankee would be third least, behind Marris (7 years) and Jackson (5 years). If, and it's a big "IF", ARod finishes his career in pinstripes, you add his to the list of guys who will have their number retired. AriGold 20:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no for O'Neill too. Yes for Jeter, yes for Bernie and yes for Rivera. At least 2 of those guys are going to the HOF too. But if we start retiring numbers of marginal players like O'Neill, we have to start looking at guys like Tino Martinez, Scotty Brosius and Andy Pettitte - and that's never going to happen. If Red Ruffing, Goose Gossage, Bob Meusel, Bobby Richardson, Graig Nettles and Willie Randolph don't have their numbers retired, why should O'Neill's be? Being popular, winning the World Series and earning one batting title isn't enough in my opinion. If you look at all the retired Yankees numbers, they're either HOFers, hold Yankee records (Mattingly), won an MVP, or died tragically (Munson, Martin). O'Neill, aside from being a popular player, did none of the above. Heck of a player though. Yankees76 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think O'Neill's number should be retired. Personally, I don't think Mattingly's number should have been retired. I think making the Baseball HoF ought to be a minimum requirement for players, and if they can't make the Hall they should have singular achievements in some way (such as Maris). --Chancemichaels 14:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Current Lineups

Are you kidding me? Current lineups complete with 15-day dl? How about we just link to an external source instead?

• If people want to keep it up to date, there's nothing wrong with it. Kingturtle 23:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Some of these team sites are nurtured and fed by their fans like they were newborn chicks: not just with the rosters, but with current won-lost record, a running commentary on the flow of the current season, etc. Since it's only baseball, not brain surgery, I don't see any harm. But if it gets to the point where fans start posting the pitch-by-pitch of today's game, you might want to draw the line. I'm sure the wikipedia folks have some upper bound on disk space. Wahkeenah 17:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It would be a bit clunky to have a user go to an extrenal source for a player roster, then search wiki for that player's page. But maybe a "current as of ..." would be a good idea but I don't know if it would go with the wiki style. jackalsclaw 14:53. 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I could keep it up to date. If someone lays the format out on the page for right now, I would have no problem. This is kind of what I do for a career - following the Yankees that is. It wouldn't really be any trouble especially for this team. I say we just keep the 25-man roster as the 40-man would in fact be very difficult to keep track of.--Djramey 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Sucky" etc.

I've been skeptical of these entries I've seen seeing, that various American League teams derived from obscure teams in the Western League. The White Sox entry says they originated in St. Paul, which squares with my understanding, but I'm not so sure about others, like the Red Sox and the Orioles-Yankees. More research is needed. It's like saying the Boston-Milwaukee-Atlanta Braves began as the Cincinnati Red Stockings: somewhat yes, somewhat no. However, there is no question that the Yankees began as the 1901-02 Orioles.

The problem I have with embittered Yankees fans describing their team as "sucky" is that there is a lack of a standard for what constitutes "sucky". The Yanks are just a few games below .500, which may be "sucky" for them, but would be pretty good if you were a fan of a team that other teams feast upon, such as the Kansas City Royales With Cheese or the Tampa Bay Devils Food Cakes. So a specific won-lost record can't be described as "sucky" by itself, but only in relation to expectations. It sounds like some SABRmetrician needs to come up with a "suckiness index" to objectively determine whether a given team at a given time is "sucky" or is merely playing at its natural level.

d:) Wahkeenah 17:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Main Rivals?

Do we even need to list "main rivals"? I've never seen listings anywhere on MLB.com about teams and having main rivals. Rivalries are mainly for the fans. Some of the rivals listed in Wikipedia are not even in the same league (AL/NL) as the Yankees. Since there are no "official" listings, the main rivals in the article are from a person's/fan's point of view and opinion. The section was started by a guest.

"Main Rivals: Boston Red Sox, Baltimore Orioles, Los Angeles Dodgers, and the New York Mets mostly, and every other team in baseball in general."

I don't quite get why that anonymous user keeps posting this "main rivals" stuff. I'm not sure if it's sincerity, ignorance or vandalism. It's certainly not objective. Wahkeenah 9 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

• • Listing "Main Rivals" is absurd. TheImpossibleMan 20:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thankfully another enterprising user has expunged all or most of that junk from the various baseball pages. There are a few links to specific rivalries, and that seems fine. Wahkeenah 23:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI I removed the Mets as a traditional rival. Sorry but I think to qualify as a traditional rival you have to play them more than once in the World Series. Expansion teams can't be traditional rivals to original teams. After the Red Sox, the Dodgers have the most history with the Yankees. Yankees76 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

They do play them in interleague play, but I agree with you. I'd be all for removing talk of "traditional" rivals altogether and just mentioning the Red Sox rivalry someplace. —Cleared as filed. 00:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. One series and a handful of meaningless interleague games does not a traditional rival make. The Blue Jays are bigger rivals than the Mets, and I think we'll see that this season. Yankees76 21:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The mention of rivals without sources should be stricken altogether IMHO. I'd want to see things like elevated attendance numbers, write-ups from notable sources, etc. My first reaction to your statement about the Blue Jays is "huh?!" What's the source for that assertion? Proof of a Mets rivalry could have been found in the past with the Clemens/Piazza/Estes beanballing/bat-throwing... A Blue Jays rivalry?! I think a poll of fans would go a long way to asserting rivalries - and I'd bet the Blue Jays would be higher-than-average at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll of who's fans? Jays or Yankees? You have to look at it from more than just a Yankee perspective. Since the Tigers left the AL East, the Blue Jays chief rivals have been the Yankees and the Sox. Did you think Blue Jays fans come to see them play Devil Rays or Orioles? The Yankees-Mets rivalry is a recent thing. Yankees fans in 1992 could have cared less about the Mets, and will care about the same 5 years from now. Yankees76 23:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll of both fans actually. Most teams - and most baseball fans for that matter - have a special place in their hearts for the Yankees - whether it's a happy place or an angry place. That doesn't mean the Yankees have a rivalry with all of them. And the bottom line is that we can't even agree with each other, therefore it's not NPOV and shouldn't be in the article. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What's there to agree about? You're a Mets fan trying to stick the Mets in a Yankees article. I had no plans of adding anything Blue Jays. Just making a point that teams in the AL East have more of a rivalry with the Yanks than a team that's not even in the same league and barely plays them does. Other than Steinbrenner's obsession with outspending the Mets in the offseason, the 2000 World Series, and a few underwhelming interleague games, there's nothing to talk about. BTW check any Toronto newspaper and you'll find out who the writers there consider to be the teams rivals. I'll give you a hint - it's not the Indians. Yankees76 04:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not trying to stick the Mets in any article. Check my edits - you'll see I never put the Mets in this article and I never would. My point is you'll find the writers in almost every A.L. city consider the Yankees to be their team's rivals. I'm in Tampa Bay now and the Yanks even get extra press here! That doesn't mean you should list every A.L. team as rivals in this article. What makes Toronto special? Take a poll of which team Yankees fans think is the Yankees' rivals - you'd get 1.) Boston, 2.) Toronto?! I don't think so. I don't know who #2 would be but I highly doubt it would be Toronto. I lived in NY for 30 years and I never remember Toronto getting more press than any other team there - even when the Jays were back-to-back World Champs. But don't look for some hidden agenda on my part - I'm just saying the wild speculation in this Talk page about Toronto vs. Baltimore vs. the Mets has no business making it into this article since no one has more proof of a rivalry than any other. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For those of use who have been following baseball for longer than just since 2000, we know that he Jays and Yankees play each other as many times as the Yanks play the Sox. The Toronto Blue Jays and their fans consider the Yankees, Red Sox and to a lesser extent Tigers as their biggest rivals. That's my point. Ask JP Riccardi who his teams rivals are. He'll say, Yanks and Sox. Why? Because they're AL EAST RIVALS. After the obvious Red Sox, the Yankees have a few other teams they battle for a playoff spot with (hint: check what teams the Yankees play most often during the season - there are 4 of them - that's why the D-Rays writers give the Yankees press). When the Blue Jays knock the Red Sox out of the playoffs this year, you'll see what I'm talking about. No they don't belong in the article yet - but neither do the Mets. Yankees76 01:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Did I call that or what? Jays in second - Boston in third!Yankees76 03:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. For the record, I never said the Mets do belong in the article. I'm just commenting on the fact that the whole concept is barely encyclopedic and I'd almost vote to remove even the Red Sox, except that they've been widely documented as rivals. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

'Traditional' Rivals?

Quickly, why are we continuing to put the the word "traditional" when it comes to describing the rivalry with the Red Sox? I've removed it and yet it's been re-added. Even a casual Yankees fan will know that the Yankees traditional rivals were the New York Giants. Review Lou Gehrigs 'Luckiest Man' speech. It's not the Red Sox he mentions (When the New York Giants, a team you would give your right arm to beat, and vice versa ...). In fact the first real 'moment' (outside of the final series of 1949) of the rivalry after the sale of Babe Ruth didn't really occur until May 20, 1976 with the Fisk-Pinella altercation. That really kicked off the rivalry we know today. I'd go so far as to content that The Sox traditional rival were the Boston Braves. Just pointing this out, but please stop reverting changes w/out discussing first. Yankees76 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How are you defining "traditional"? From 1941 to 1981, the Yankees played the Dodgers eleven times compared to the Giants only twice. With all of the Podres/Koufax/Snider/Ford/Mantle/Reggie/etc. matchups, I'd consider that to be more of a traditional rivalry personally. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

True. I guess traditional could be the same as 'original'? Or 'classic'? I guess they (the Dodgers and Giants) should be considered for addition as they've met what, 17 times combined against the Yankees in the world series? The Red Sox rivalry tends to make us overlook some of the old-time rivalries that were just as fierce. Yankees76 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's as simple as "if you can find good sources, you can add it to the article". Sounds like it might be an interesting paragraph or two all by itself if it can be sourced well enough. I'd be interested to see if someone could find info on a supposed Boston-Boston rivalry (like you contend) considering the two never played each other. (Almost did one year - I don't recall which - but someone spoiled it by winning the pennant in the last week or so). —Wknight94 (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope they never played. I suppose that rivalry was more from the standpoint of playing in the same city - competing for fan loyalty and money - and it forced one team right out of town. Yankees76 22:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"New York, New York"

While it made for great bar conversation on Friday night, I'm still pondering this on Monday morning. Does anyone know when "Theme From New York, New York" was first played regularly after Yankee home games?

According to Tony Morante, the team began using Liza Minelli's version in 1976, and Frank Sinatra's in 1977. Huge thanks to Mr. Morante for the timely info.felix142 September 12, 2005

Has it always been "Reward the fans with Frank when we win, punish them with Liza when we lose?"  ;-) --Chancemichaels 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Haha. I am not sure how long they have been doing that. But there is nothing worse than leaving the stadium dissapointed and not hearing Sinatra makes it all worse. 68.192.78.133 01:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Payroll"

I have put together some estimates for the 2006 yankee's payroll (Around 181 million), does anyone know where this might go? I put it here for now New York Yankees Payroll. please tell me what you think.Jackalsclaw 09:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)(sorry this was unsigned for a while,I think my log in timed out and I didn't notice"

This is likely very good information for the page, but I wonder if maybe it should be retitled to reflect the payroll for the MLB team, and how accuratly we can judge that. Any ideas? --Djramey 13:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I will state I am a Red Sox fan, but I think it is important that the Yankees' entry mentions their significant spending advantage compared to other MLB teams. Yes, I understand that there is a luxury tax, and I do not presume to imply that the Yankees have broken any MLB rules by spending more than other teams. However, I think it is folly to *not* mention their spending in light of their success as a team; indeed as a team with a barely-effective farm system their ability to pay players well contributes significantly to their success.

The Red Sox are also benefited by being a big-market team, and as such I think their salaries are the 2nd-highest in baseball. ESPN.com lists the Yankees' payroll at $198m, Red Sox second with $120m. Page is here: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=nyy Chris 19:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Current Notable Players with Minor league Contracts

Please let us know if Tino Martinez is there

By "there" I am making the assumption that this poster is refering to one of the Yankee Minor League teams. If my assumption is correct, than the answer is no. And here is the reason: When Tino Martinez was signed by the New York Yankees for his second time, its was under the terms of 1 year and a club option of around US$3 Million for a second year. On November 8, 2005 the ball club declined the option thus making Tino Martinez a free agent post haste. --Djramey 13:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Tino Martinez has retired. He's going to be an analyst on Baseball Tonight on ESPN this season. Yankees76 00:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Want about new jersey's own al leiter? John wesley 21:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Al is in camp as a non-roster invitee. It'll take a miracle (or an injury) for him to make the team, especially with the signings of Mike Myers and Ron Villone. He's also on the U.S. provisional roster for the World Baseball Classic. Yankees76 21:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Just an obvious update. Al Leiter announced he will retire after the World Baseball Classic (which he became a participant of after CC Sabathia and Billy Wagner pulled out of). Thus making him no longer a Yankee player. His name should not be removed from the roster, I don't believe, until this announcement becomes official by an announcement from the New York Yankee organization.--Djramey 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"America's Team"

You're just lucky no Dallas Cowboys fans have seen that. I've heard many, many teams call themselves "America's Team", that term in that section is OR POV. It'll have to be replaced, but with what, i'm unsure. Karmafist 15:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not one team in America that everybody loves. There is no point in calling anybody Americas Team.

Enterence music question

Does any one know where I can find a current and coplete list of all the player's enterence music for the yankees. I have found partial lists here http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=schrager/040806 and a old one here http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=songs/yankees.

Unwarranted Sections and Missing History

I've noticed there are a number or really unnecessary sections (2005/06 offseason for example) while there are still huge holes in the history of the team (ie: very little mention of the 80s', no mention of Don Mattingly's MVP season, nothing much about Billy Martin's firing/re-hiring/firing/death, no mention of Thurman Munson or his death, nothing about the start of the modern Red Sox rivalry May 20, 1976, or Chris Chambliss ALCS winning homer in 1976, Guidry striking out 18, George Frazier losing 3 games in the '81 series - or the 81 series at all for that matter etc.,) Can we focus on getting the relevant history correct before we start adding useless sections like "Famous Fans" (where we list a grand total of 8). Is it really that important to list that a few famous people cheer for the Yankees, while Thurman Munson dying in a plane crash in the middle of the 1979 season is completely omitted? Thoughts? Yankees76 16:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed 'Famous Fans', I see I'm not the only editor who has questioned it's existence. 71.247.73.73, since you added this section and nearly all of the fans feel free to comment. Yankees76 17:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just removed a "Famous Fans" section that was added by 67.86.122.109. -- Win777 20:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

about the "WOrld Series Drought #2" Just because Yankee fans are completwley unreasonable doesn't mean that their complaining should be in a encyclopedia entry, I recomend getting rid of it.

I think that "Post-2004 Era" needs to be removed as a title because it can be combined with "21st century". As for "World Series Drought #2", that may also need to be removed. --Sportskido8 11:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)