THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

[byron]

bottom line ...the red sox suck !

[Morehead State]

yea, except earlier he said that our '09 and '10 seasons would wash out the championships because we were mediocre. so, the tune is apparently changing lol

So you are saying that the Yankees were not a dynasty from the 20's thru the early sixties. They had several mediocre seasons but the overall dominence over a long period of time is what makes them a dynasty. No team wins every year.
My view is that there have only been a few true sports dynasties. We grasp at straws by trying to redefine greatness in todays media intense world.
But real dynasties are actually very rare and truly exceptional.
You guys can define it any way you want. You can put lipstick on a pig and call it Monique if you want, but its still a pig. I'm not even going to say you're all wrong because my definition is simply different that yours. Yours is a far lower standard than mine. If that gets you thru the night thats fine with me.
In the end its all subjective. Its all opinion. There is no definate definition of a dynasty. But I will continue to honor the old scool view, because I refuse to lower standards to fit in a modern world.

[Morehead State]

bottom line ...the red sox suck !

Actually we're starting to play better. Friggin Valentine though is killing us.
I can see us going on a run and making it interesting.

[antimorehead]

Why? The Yankees had a dynasty that started with Babe Ruth and ended with Mickey Mantle. There certainly does NOT have to be a core of players. Usually there isn't. The Habs went from Rocket Richard to Guy LaFluer and Ken Dryden. The UCLA Bruins went from Lew Alcindor and Mike Warren to Bill Walton and Henry Bibby.
Where on earth does this "core of players" standard come from?

Id argue that there were really only 2 Yankee dynasties during that time. The early 40's, as good as they were I wouldnt consider them a dynasty.

[antimorehead]

Actually we're starting to play better. Friggin Valentine though is killing us.
I can see us going on a run and making it interesting.

I can see the sox making it interesting but fall short. Do you think Bobbys gone after his first year there?

[Morehead State]

Id argue that there were really only 2 Yankee dynasties during that time. The early 40's, as good as they were I wouldnt consider them a dynasty.

You have to exclude the war years. All teams were on skeleton crews.

[Morehead State]

I can see you making it interesting but fall short. Do you think Bobbys gone after his first year there?

I was dead set agianst his hiring so I have no idea what ownership was thinking.
I was 100% behind hiring Sandy Alomar Jr. They hired Valentine probably because they thought he would bring dicipline to the clubhouse. All he's done is act like an outsider and screw up the great chemistry this team had. Yes they had some problems with a few guys drinking beer, but the chemistry of the team was fine. The reason they fell apart last season was because Jon Lester forgot how to pitch. And it seems that he still hasn't remembered this year. And getting rid of Yuke is a tough one. The guy is a Red Sox thru and thru.

[antimorehead]

You have to exclude the war years. All teams were on skeleton crews.

You are correct, yanks won in 43.

47 to 61 is probably the best example of a dynasty, especially since it lasted so long. The yanks won every AL pennat from 49 to 58.

[Morehead State]

You are correct, yanks won in 43.

47 to 61 is probably the best example of a dynasty, especially since it lasted so long. The yanks won every AL pennat from 49 to 58.

While the Yanks were winning a WS, Ted Williams was shooting down Krouts over Europe as a fighter pilot.

[antimorehead]

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2...tm_term=%23nyg


Bring it Jerray