I really do not mean to disparage anyone, but have an alternative view of competition that is independent of the size of a team's wallet and more power to the Yankees in their acquisition of Stanton. May they hit 300 home runs this year and win 130 games.
However I love underdogs. Consider 2008 when the value of the Yankees in terms of payroll was roughly $286,000,000. In the same year the value of the Red Sox' payroll was roughly $160,000,000. They finished second and third in their division. And who won the division and made it to the World Series?
Joe Maddon and the boys from the "Trop", whose aggregate value in 2008 was $65,000,000, which was less than the salary of three Yankees that year (ARod, Giambi and Jeter).
With a salary less than 25% of the pinstripers they prevailed. The obstacles facing small market teams over an 162 game season are nearly insurmountable. The inability to retain their young "stars" is a virtual certainty. The folks in Tampa Bay, Milwaukee and Houston for that matter need dictionaries to look up the word "dynasty". It doesn't happen very often to be sure, but to realize that they can win even one pennant is an accomplishment far greater than another pennant added by a big market team from New York, Los Angeles, Boston or Chicago.
I grew up in New York in the days of Willie, Mickey and the Duke. My bias was probably influenced by the "underdog" Giants in 1954 when they swept the 111 win Indians in the World Series. Between 1947 and 1963 only 4 teams other than the Dodgers or the Yankees won the World Series. Milwaukee winning in '57 and Pittsburgh winning in '60 was good for baseball I maintain.
The playing fields were tilted then favoring big market teams and they still are and I can accept that. But give me an underdog that is making a run in the middle of the season and that's my team.
