And the Yankees and Red Sox are not in the same category... at all.

I think #26 is a really good post by Kiko. The point about Jeter, Rivera, Posada and Pettitte's retaining their value is key and one I and others have made. Has any other team ever won 100+ games and a WS with a 35-year-old SS and a 38-year-old C? How many teams, historically, have even HAD guys that old in those two spots, much less guys playing at the level that Jeter and Posada did?

I second the sentiment about Kiko's post.

As this season has gone on, and the Yankees have got great performances out of these stars who don't seem to feel the effects of aging, it has occurred to me that there is a parallel in another sport.

The Australians dominated Test Cricket, with no serious rivals, between the early 1990's and about 2007 (with a few blips in there).

They did this with a great core of players, including, most notably:

- the best wicketkeeper/batsman of all time, who was almost never injured in his career.

- the greatest spin bowler of all time, who remained effective throughout a 15 year period(save for a year off for taking a banned substance) and was arguably still the greatest when he retired.

- one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time, who sustained an incredibly high level of performance for over 10 years and sufferred very little in the way of injuries.

- two opening batsmen who, whilst not individually the best of all time, were as a unit in the top 4 or 5 opening pairs of all time.

- 2 captains who are amongst the greatest middle order batsmen of all time.

They routinely hammered England, and everyone else for that matter, throughout this period. England had their best players retire early, get injured, lose form...not the Australians. Same core guys, series after series, steamrollering the competition. Even in their late 30s.

Now? Well, they've all retired from test cricket bar 1. Australia are still good, but are a bit more human. It took a herculean effort from a great England team to beat the core players in 2005 (and they were thrashed again in 2007) but a much weaker England side beat Australia without these players this year. They've also lost recently to India and South Africa.

As it goes with Australia, so it will with the Yankees. I personally think that like Shane Warne, Rivera will never lose it. But some day he will still retire. As will the others. Sure, the Yankees can buy free agents, but replacing those guys who you know are going to give you that high level of performance every year is going to be next to impossible. Once the Jeter/Rivera era is over, the Yankees will contend, sure, every year, but playoffs 14 years out of 15 may not be achievable any more.

If one of the problems is the Yankees can sign whoever they want, and teams are trading away upcoming free agents mid-season so they don't walk away for nothing, then I think they need to change the FA compensation system.

Forget compensation picks, and make it players or cash. Give the Royals a real reason to not trade Beltran to Houston and hold him, so if they can't afford to sign him, the Mets (or whoever) need to pay market value back to the Royals when Beltran signs with them. (This wouldn't be necessary for all FAs, but at least a top tier or two).

Expand the draft, make it much easier for teams to pick the player they want instead of the one they can sign, and expand team control a year longer.

Those two changes, you might see teams succeeding less on cash reserves.

Might could work.

Why would the Players' Association agree to measures that would drive down the price of free-agents?

Considering the arrangement the team had prior to the formation of YES — which saw MSG paying about $55MM annually — I'd be surprised if the YES Network pays even $75MM.

$75 million would be $25 million what the Angels get from their television contract. And since the Yankees do own 40% of YES, that's another revenue stream most other teams wouldn't have access to.

And the Yankees and Red Sox are not in the same category... at all.

There are eight other teams that ran a roster payroll over $100 million this year. The Yankees outspent the next closest payroll by over $67 million. There are big payroll teams, and then there are the Yankees.

Forget compensation picks, and make it players or cash. Give the Royals a real reason to not trade Beltran to Houston and hold him, so if they can't afford to sign him, the Mets (or whoever) need to pay market value back to the Royals when Beltran signs with them.

Better yet, instead of having compensation picks, just make the Yankees (or whatever receiving team) give up their pick to the other team as part of the exchange.

I was about to say that the Red Sox payroll was still a lot higher than the 3rd place team, but I didn't realize the Red Sox payroll was the 4th highest and "only" $122M. So I stand corrected.

Even when they were second a couple years ago, they weren't in the same category. The Sox (by need or choice or whatever) are in the next group with the Angels, Tigers, Mets, etc.

$75 million would be $25 million what the Angels get from their television contract. And since the Yankees do own 40% of YES, that's another revenue stream most other teams wouldn't have access to.

Exactly. The YES Network is separate, just like NESN is from the Red Sox, or the Fenway Marketing Group, or any franchise-owned network. When Tribune owned the Cubs, should WGN revenue have been counted as part of their local revenue?

That would make sense to me, yes.