The answer is simple: They need to develop young players through their farm system. Generally speaking, a team's best players over long periods of time are those who came up through their own system. Free agents can provide nice additions, but are rarely the type of anchor player that can truly help a team.

When the Yankees were a dominant team, from the late 90's through early 2000's, was when their homegrown talent (Rivera, Jeter, Posada) was in its prime. Now, they are starting to wind down their careers (although Rivera was stellar this year and Jeter was solid). The other players that they are bringing up now have been disappointing (Cano, Cabrera, Rasner, Karstens). As a result, they're forced to go out and spend a trillion dollars on free agents who never really meld with their teammates (ARod, Giambi).

Compare a team like the Boston Red Sox (full disclosure: I'm a fan). They focus on developing their farm system and trading for young talent, rather than expensive all stars already at the peak of their career. As a result, they have guys like Pedroia, Youkilis, Ellsbury, Lester, Lowrie, and Masterson all poised to have all the best years of their career with the Sox.

The key difference is that the Sox buy low, while the Yankees buy high. Jason Varitek and Derek Lowe were young unknown players in 1995 when the Sox traded Heathcliff Slocumb to get them. They got Mike Lowell as a throw-in with the Josh Beckett-Hanley Ramirez deal. David Ortiz was a NOBODY playing for the Twins when the Red Sox got him. They take cheaper, lesser known players that they feel will become good. They did this recently with Jason Bay, and he's producing for a lot less cost than Manny.

The Yankees, however, like to buy players who have already proven themselves. This is sensible, but it causes them to overpay and lose a lot of money if something goes wrong. Carl Pavano is the best example of this, although Giambi's underperformance could be put in there too. Johnny Damon fits this pattern too...he was experienced, but that means that he's likely to fade before long. Yet, the Yankees still paid him lots of money.

As George Steinbrenner releases his death grip on the organization, they've become much better at developing their young players and I expect them to be back in world series contention within 3 years.

In my opinion, the fact that they respond directly (and sometimes even interrupt each other) allows them to clarify their direct points way more than their stump speeches.

What does everyone think of the debate's decidedly adversarial and argumentative approach this time through? The candidates are being allowed to directly address each others' comments.
Personally I love it, but I still think that they should be required to cite their references for any claims of "fact" that they make.

So you PERFORM the shenanigans, or just ORGANIZE them?! (shenanigans + organizer = shenaniganizer)

*waltzes into the lounge*

Hey where are all the broads?

(((Indn)))

Law firm associate.

The good: Getting to be dressed up all the time, and making positive impacts in people's lives. Also, getting to argue.

The bad: Intense pressure. Guilt when you lose and your client is let down.

The ugly: Alcoholism is a side effect of the profession.

Hahahahaha.

Yep that was my original comment. Somehow I doubt that she's 8 years old...

Accomplishments.

I can sleep when I die.

Leave, for two reasons.

First, being in a committed relationship with someone who doesn't love you is a waste of your time.

Second, why would you ever want to be with someone who would commit to someone even if they didn't love them?

Awe inspiring. Ever thought about expanding your horizons and maybe elevating your goals?

I found deep puppy love at age 16, and real love at 19.

These are all awesome answers, especially with how unselfish everyone is thinking.

But try to expand it...what do you REALLY want to do that you have never pursued. Those are the kind of goals I'm looking to flesh out here. I made a list last year of all the things that I wanted to do, even though a lot of them seemed outlandish. I wound up completing about half the list, and I was so happy that I did.

So what is it that you've always wanted to do and maybe this will be the year you finally do!

It's important to remember that the real base for all of this aggression is technically still murky. Russia is accusing Georgia of ethnic cleansing just as readily as Georgia is pointing the finger at Russia. Although Russia has obviously been licking its chops for a war, it may not be as barbaric as it seems. (Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/11/georgia.russia.oakley/index.html)

And forgetting about whether or not we could defeat Russia (seriously, I don't know, so I don't want to argue that point), it would have DISASTROUS policy fallout if we tried. It's not because we have a spineless leader, it's because the mere attempt to do so would have ridiculously far reaching consequences, very few of which would be positive.

Thinking about your life, what goals do you want to achieve in the next year?

Mine are:

Graduate school
Perform a stand up comedy routine at the comedy club downtown
Learn Russian
Learn cricket
Skydive
Go to Ireland
Win a place in the Sam Adams homebrewing competition
Bench 225
Create a youtube viral video (100,000+ views)

Not all will happen, but they're all things I'll pursue. That's what life's about...the pursuit.

I can't believe I forgot China! So dumb, with the Olympics going on!

Show off!

Wow that was way harder than it should have been.

I got 60 on the nose.

Notable ones that I totally spaced out:

China, Iceland, Israel, Pakistan, Afghanistan...etc.

Ugh!

Touche. Not a perfect fit with the definition of "invention" but you're right that someone came up with the scientific method, so I'll concede that one.