The best team won, but it's not a new dynasty

2009-11-06T18:48:43-05:00

So that's that. For just the second time this decade baseball has an undisputed champion, a team that won the most games in the regular season and went on to win the World Series. Whether or not you care for the Yankees, you can't make any kind of argument that they're a paper champion. As I wrote <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2234585/" target="_blank">elsewhere</a> today, there's at least as much reason to think this was the last hurrah of the old Joe Torre Yankees as there is to think this is the beginning of a new dynasty. Even in their newly remodeled version the team is old, and, as they say, what can't continue, won't. There are reasons why catchers and shortstops and closers don't usually play as well as Derek Jeter and Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera have at their ages, and there isn't any obvious way to replace these irreplaceable players. Meanwhile Boston and Tampa Bay will likely be better next year than they were this year, and there are two whole other divisions to contend with as well. As the Phillies can tell you, it's tough to repeat. Still, in the wild-card era especially, a true championship is something to savor, and the Yankees won theirs the hard way, beating first the hottest team in the American League, then the one team that has had their number for years, and then the reigning World Series winner. It's 151 days to spring training, when everything starts over again. Until then, the Yankees have earned the right to smile the widest smiles in the world. The best team won, but it's not a new dynasty

2009-11-05T11:12:05-05:00

2009-11-06T18:48:43-05:00

http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/112/78/thumb/MRivera.jpg 18993 NY

AllStarz

11298

8 So who said Dynasty other than the author in order to say it wasn't, duh, seems like a waste of space. Better use of this space would be to expand on how the core has performed, despite so many who said they were done years ago. Dynasty? Of coarse not, but don't count them out...they aren't going anywhere either. 7572312

2009-11-06T11:58:46-05:00

football3@spankmonkey.com

Topeka 586723

7 I've been a Yankee fan since around 1970 (I was 4 then), and have seen many good years and some lean years. I think in sports terms "dynasty" is akin to "team of the decade". It's not "win three in a row", it's certainly not "win more championships than anyone else over the last 90 years". Dynasty might mean "three championships in four years". It might mean "six championships in ten years". It's a nebulous thing, but it is certainly not "win your first championship in nine years". To rebut the author, it's way to early to start talking dynasty. Let the Bombers win next year, and the year after, then we can talk dynasty. The team has the talent now, the farm teams seem well stocked with talent for the future, and the Boss seems to have the will to hire positional players where there are weaknesses. I disagree that just because Jeter, Posada, and Rivera are getting older there's no way the team can repeat their dominant ways. That would only be true if those were the only players the Yankees could ever have in those positions. The Yankees aren't going anywhere, and remember they have a history of replacing retiring players with other great players. Sometimes they hire the wrong guy, but more often than not they get it right. That's why the 27th World Series win will not be the last. 7565077

2009-11-06T10:00:06-05:00

Jim

Matawan 5226

5 Right then. I guess the other 29 teams can pack up and go home, because NOBODY can EVER be as good as the Yankees... 7561731

2009-11-06T04:10:38-05:00

http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/558/701/thumb/Gehrig_Lou.gif 12 CA

NYfanforever

Lancaster 559181

4 nochowderheads: what were the yankees of the 20s? AL pennants 21,22,23,26,27,28? of the 60s?: 60,61,62,63,64? no, your definition is both too narrow & too broad. a dynasty is dominance over decades. therer is only 1 - NY Yankees. 7559551

2009-11-06T02:26:31-05:00

nochowderheads

Champaign 7132

3 A dynasty is a team that wins three championships in a row. There have only been four in the history of baseball (NY, 1936-9, 1949-53, 1998-2000, A's 1972-4). Even if you allow teams that win three pennants or more and two WS in a row (NY, 1926-8, NY 1960-64, NY, 1976-78, A's 1929-31), it is still a pretty exclusive club. No one should start talking dynasty after one championship. The odds against these Yankees swelling the ranks is long, though the acquisition of a Matt Holiday and/or a John Lackey could make them formidable for next year at least. 7559501

2009-11-06T02:00:14-05:00

http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/218/119/thumb/sparky.gif 37 co

asualumn05

highlands ranch 218419

2 Great points about the age factor. Also, it gets very annoying after a team wins a championship that "experts" and fans want to throw around "beginning of a dynasty" or "greatest team ever". Yes the Yankees won and were the best team in baseball, but they are not a dynasty. Remember last year, many wanted to anoint the Rays as a future juggernaut/dynasty waiting to happen. What happened to them? 7559455

2009-11-05T23:20:22-05:00

Whynot?

Whitefield 469117

1 ARod is now free from his personal 800lb gorilla. He and Tex will be the best 1-2 tandem in baseball. Posada is an overrated asset, as his poor defense and game calling counter much of his offensive talents, so his demise wont be as hard to overcome since the Yankees have a few decent minor league catchers to work with. The important elements of this team will be intact next year, and with some offseason additions this team will compete again next near. Shame on you for still drinking the Devil Ray Kool-Aid! 7558754

Tim Marchman

Chicago 814404