I kind of feel Parity had nothing to do with it, Fact of the matter is fans want good baseball which these playoffs gave us,

really? 75% of fans in baseball markets would disagree with you. when your team perpetually sucks, you could care less what kind of baseball is played in the playoffs. when your manager can come on TV and say stuff like, "oh, we won't make it to the playoffs or anything this season, but i think we might be pretty competitive," you know the situation in baseball sucks.

 

 

Oh and no one has yet to step forward and try to defend cheap owners and their stance that their the ones we should feel bad for.

there really aren't that many. the majority of teams in baseball are losing lots of money. the problem isn't a couple cheap owners.

oh, and baseball is by no means a success.

 

every season baseball has humongous operating losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

payrolls are huge and the sport is dying because of it. many, many teams don't even have a shot to compete during the regular season because they simply cannot afford the players that some big-spending competitors. that makes losses even greater and increases the rift between the good and the bad.

 

without a cap, baseball runs on an unbelievably bad economic model. annual losses aren't going to just go away. eventually it won't be able to continue like this.

 

 

Why should I have pity on small market teams that don't know how to spend.

 

The Brewers, Should I feel bad for them that they lied to their city, promising them increased spending if they got a new stadium and did not about it?

 

Should I feel bad for The Rangers, who overspent on crap because they didn't look into the players that they were giving big money too, instead basing their judgement on unreliable one year totals, same thing goes for the mets and The Tigers(Giving long term money, to players like Palmer and Easly is not because of THe Yankee's it's called Poor Judgement)

 

Who I do feel good for is The Small Market teams and MId Market teams who spend wisely and scout wisely and have been reaching success and yes their's a lot of them.

 

Fact of the matter is, If you want to be a baseball owner and make money, your not fit for this job. Few men are able to do that and still win while the rest try to make money or cut their losses because they think owning a team is supposed to be run as a buisness.

 

Pat Croce never made money on The Sixers and still won, when he ran them...

 

I don't feel bad for him because he ran any team the way it should be run.

 

The whole unfair balance theory is crap because all it is, is trying to use teams with Bad GM's and Greedy Owners as the basis instead of teams with either good Gm's or Real Owners who are able to compete.

really? 75% of fans in baseball markets would disagree with you. when your team perpetually sucks, you could care less what kind of baseball is played in the playoffs. when your manager can come on TV and say stuff like, "oh, we won't make it to the playoffs or anything this season, but i think we might be pretty competitive," you know the situation in baseball sucks.

Give me examples from last years losers, that weren't riddled with bad contracts given to bad players or who had owners who were not willing to spend money on good players.

Why should I have pity on small market teams that don't know how to spend.

think about it for a second.

 

most small market teams don't suck because they "don't know how to spend."

 

most small market teams suck because they have much less to spend and they must compete with teams that spend much more than them. of course they're usually not going to do very well.

 

poor performance every year in a small market = less revenues = greater losses = greater revenue-sharing burden. do you see what i'm getting at? it's a viscious cycle. something must be done to depress net expenses (salaries).

 

the point of owning a baseball team is to make money. it's a business just like any other. it's not some sort of community service in which you lose millions just to please the fans. you can't expect the majority of baseball teams to continue having huge operating losses every year.

HUH????

 

why on earth would a team put a-rod at 3rd base and keep derek jeter at shortstop?

 

that's retarded.

definitely. What are you two talking about? You dont think the transition from SS to 3B is relatively painless? SS's are usually the best athletes on the field. They usually end up at 3B at the end of their careers anyway. Travis Fryman came up as a SS intially, became a 3B. Cal Ripken ended up playing 3B - but probably could have made that transition earlier but pride and a streak wouldnt let him. There are countless examples (Miguel Cabrera, ahem) that demonstrate this. i think you misunderstood the point.

 

jeter sucks at shortstop. i'd rather put him at 3rd than a-rod. So, like I said - how does quibbling over who plays 3B or SS make this a bad deal? And Jeter is an excellent defensive SS - I have NO idea what you are talking about.

Oakland is awesome because Billy Beane is a genius.

 

Imagine him with 200 million dollars to spend on players :confused

Beane is probably one of the most overrated GMs in all of baseball.

 

Secondly, he had his chance to be able to spend $200M a year - but he declined the position with the Red Sux. I think it is because he wouldnt have had the excuse of being a small market team which goes a long way towards making him, in the eyes of people like you, a 'genius'.

So, like I said - how does quibbling over who plays 3B or SS make this a bad deal? And Jeter is an excellent defensive SS - I have NO idea what you are talking about.

lol

 

i didn't say anything about it being a bad or good deal.

 

i said arod should play SS for the yanks, not jeter.

first off....

 

 

the rangers should of made the yankees pay the entire contract.

 

 

 

secondly...

 

 

jonny is right. Miami is NOT a small market. Wake up and stop using that excuse. If you want to see it as a market where the team is struggling with revenues then thats true. But its not the market that is small.

 

 

this is just a riduclious deal.

 

 

the yankees get stronger...but do they get that much stronger and is it worth the payroll increase? oh well let them worry about it.

 

 

i still say that we are just seeing the yankees moving their problems from one position to another.

Precisely. The Yankees go from worrying about 3B to now worrying about 2B. Their defense sucks and their pitching is primed to break down any moment. So the Yankees increased their spending (all of it in ONE player) from last year, what teams have not done that?

The trade: This has to the biggest trade since Sheffield-Piazza, if not since Frank Robinson. And don't worry it will happen. Bud was so pressed to get ARod eastward that he bent rules and extended deadlines for the Boston move.

 

The impact: Oh shut up. Both Boston and New York are guilty of overspending. Their minor league systems are utter trash as a result they will switch places with the Orioles and Devil Rays sooner or later. They do this because of their market. The east coast, especially the northeast is the prosperous and populated region of the country, and the teams are going to get more money from broadcasting contracts and advertising than anyone else can dream of. They do it because they can.

 

The Yankees: Don't see how ARod at third, Jeter at short and Cairo/Lamb at second as much of an improvement. That's still a horrible defense. And if the 'minor league pitcher' is DePaula, there is no one to backup an injury-prone Brown, a guy who hasn't pitched in 18 months and old Cuban posing as a thirty-something. AL East crown is a good bet, but don't go writing in 110 wins or making comparisions to the 1927 squad. But that's all that matters, beating Boston, right?

Exactly. 100% correct.

really? 75% of fans in baseball markets would disagree with you. when your team perpetually sucks, you could care less what kind of baseball is played in the playoffs. when your manager can come on TV and say stuff like, "oh, we won't make it to the playoffs or anything this season, but i think we might be pretty competitive," you know the situation in baseball sucks.

Give me examples from last years losers, that weren't riddled with bad contracts given to bad players or who had owners who were not willing to spend money on good players. the d rays, padres, indians, and tigers are some VERY notable examples.

Yes, the small market teams have had success the last couple of years, but the big market team's spending never really got out of hand. The Yankees team last year was not that great, it had several gaping holes.

 

This year with the things that the Red Sox and Yankees have done it has gotten out of hand. They have had the ability to pick up whatever big name player that they want at will. The Yankees have an all-star at every position except 2nd base. (but I can almost guarantee you they'll have one by July 31st) It is going to get to a point where these small market teams will not be able to compete. Maybe not this year, but somewhere down the road if it keeps heading in this direction.

actually, i think itll work in reverse. down the road the big market teams will regret spending so much money. they are biting off more than they can chew. u just dont realize it when you first bite (catch my drift?) You are both right. But I agree that it will be the big market teams that regret their overspending. THis has already been the case. In the mid-to late 90's, teams that spent the most money had the best chance at success. It had a lot to do with expansion and a lack of talent. So the best talent was going to cost you. Teams went out and spent a lot of money.

 

But with the constant crop of players coming in, better scouting and a wider pool to draw talent from (a.k.a. the rest of the world), the talent has gotten much deeper and teams have not had to spend as much to get quality arms on their teams. Teams that have been forced to get talent have the better farm systems while teams that can win and spend money have been able to sustain that approach. That would be the Yankees. The Red Sux had to compete with the money because they had to, and because they had the talent in place before in order to start winning.

 

This too will change. George will not be happy about spending $200M and losing in the end while teams with $60-80M beat him. Plus, the luxury tax? The Yankees are far from a superior team at this point anyway. There are a lot of question marks.

really?? 75% of fans in baseball markets would disagree with you.? when your team perpetually sucks, you could care less what kind of baseball is played in the playoffs.? when your manager can come on TV and say stuff like, "oh, we won't make it to the playoffs or anything this season, but i think we might be pretty competitive," you know the situation in baseball sucks.?

Give me examples from last years losers, that weren't riddled with bad contracts given to bad players or who had owners who were not willing to spend money on good players. the d rays, padres, indians, and tigers are some VERY notable examples. The Tigers: Riddled with bad contracts, Dean Palmer, Bobby Higginson and Damion Easly among others all were long term diasasters which were the result of...

 

Bad Gm's. Now that those contracts are beginning to go, they are spending smart on decent players and giving a very smart long term deal to a good player.

 

The D Rays: They spent money on one of the best manager's in Baseball last year and knew going into the season that their season was for young players down the road, result of...

 

Good Scouting, This year they spent smart on decent players which is the result of Good GM's. When The DRays first started out they relied on aging players(Boggs, Canseco, Crime Dog) instead of building young and building smart which would have resulted in W's now. Foolish spending on players like that resulted in losses and they are just now realizing what needs to be done.

 

Padre's: Money was going into a new stadium, plus Nevin was out and some of their bigger names were aging mixed with promising young talent led to their defeat. They are doing better but in the past years, they had spots of aging but still solid talent but they also had big holes resulted by their spending on players who were up there.

 

Those teams thought they were going to be able to win simply because they gave all their money to a few solid players and they would help fill the holes, they neglected good scouting and it hurt them.

 

Plain and simple

Right now, the Yankees pitching is not all that great and they will need the offensive boost to make up the difference. Finally, to win the World Series it is all about pitching. Good pitching beats our great hitting just about anytime. As long as a team has good pitching, they can patchwork an offense to score runs and win.

 

In other words, money does NOT equal wins. That formula has failed more often than suceeded.

money does not equal wins, but at this point I find it very hard to believe that the yankees aren't going to literally steamroll over other teams. Their talent at this point is absurd. Is a world series championship guarenteed? No, in october the best team at the moment wins. But is it close to guarenteed? My money would definitely be on the yankees, that's for sure.

 

Now concerning your comment on pitching, the yankees have some of the best pitching in the majors.

 

Mike Mussina 3.40

Kevin Brown 2.39

Javier Vazquez 3.24

Jose Contreras 3.30

Jon Lieber (last available era) 3.70

 

rough average era: 3.21

Mariano Rivera 1.66

Tom Gordon 3.16

Paul Quantrill 1.75

Gabe White 4.05

Steve Karsay (last available era) 3.26

Felix Heredia 2.69

rough average ERA: 2.76

 

You say that pitching isn't "all that great"? It is awesome. That is some damn good pitching. Lets look at this pitching staff a little closer.

 

Brown was injured practically all of the seasons 2001, 2002. He got in 32 GS last year and had a great year, but is far from a sure bet to do that again at the age of 38.

 

Mussina and Vazquez are both very good pitchers. I'll grant you that.

 

Contreras has a career 9 starts.

 

Lieber is coming off major recontstructive surgery and hasnt pitched since 2002.

 

So:

Brown ?

Mussina

Vazquez

Contreras ?

Lieber ?

 

That is 3 of your 5 starters that SHOULD raise some eyebrows. Plus having one of the worst defenses in ALL of baseball behind them, it doesnt bode well for a learning curve out there AND spending $200M. This team is EXPECTED to win - anything less than that is a FAILURE.

Those teams thought they were going to be able to win simply because they gave all their money to a few solid players and they would help fill the holes, they neglected good scouting and it hurt them.

dude, every team in every sport has bad contracts. that can't possibly be an argument against a small market team. the fact that you have teams like the d rays that have NO bad contracts is incredible and speaks of their excellent front office.

 

the d rays could only afford to spend $19,630,000 on payroll and still had huge losses.

 

the padres could only afford $48 million and they still had big losses.

 

the indians spent $48.5 million.

 

these teams all lost money and they all sucked because they could spend much less on payroll than their competitors (most of which also lost money).

 

it's such a terrible business model.

Oakland is awesome because Billy Beane is a genius.

 

Imagine him with 200 million dollars to spend on players :confused

Beane is probably one of the most overrated GMs in all of baseball.

 

Secondly, he had his chance to be able to spend $200M a year - but he declined the position with the Red Sux. I think it is because he wouldnt have had the excuse of being a small market team which goes a long way towards making him, in the eyes of people like you, a 'genius'. I don't think Beane is overated but you do have a point about declining the Sox offer.

Only way Baseball will flourish again if a total restructuring of the ecomics system is done.Why is the NFL so successful?Why MLB is the total opposite?

 

All Baseball has to is look at the blue print set forth by NFL.

Baseball needs to do three things to bring parity between it's teams:

 

1) Get Selig out as commissioner. He has good ideas, boneheaded ideas, and WTF ideas and horrible execution.

2) Get Rudolf Guliani in as commish. He was a prosecutor which is the commish's main job, he is a fan, he was politician, he is familiar and friendly with both players and owners and he is already in NYC.

3) Force FOX, ESPN, and future TV partners to show all 30 teams the same amount of times on National TV.

BTW, the D-Rays don't lose money. According to the Tampa Trib, they turned a $1 million profit in 2001 after including non-baseball event proceeds from Tropicana Field.

 

They decided to balance the budget by cutting payroll, now they have enough money to go out and build a team with Lou.

Those teams thought they were going to be able to win simply because they gave all their money to a few solid players and they would help fill the holes, they neglected good scouting and it hurt them.

dude, every team in every sport has bad contracts. that can't possibly be an argument against a small market team. the fact that you have teams like the d rays that have NO bad contracts is incredible and speaks of their excellent front office.

 

the d rays could only afford to spend $19,630,000 on payroll and still had huge losses.

 

the padres could only afford $48 million and they still had big losses.

 

the indians spent $48.5 million.

 

these teams all lost money and they all sucked because they could spend much less on payroll than their competitors (most of which also lost money).

 

it's such a terrible business model. Your basing your entire model on bad teams, I have yet to hear you mention, The Twins, A's, KC, Marlins, Expo's, Rockies among others... Mid Market teams who are not push overs

 

You just dodged THe Drays, The Drays early on had horrible scouting and based their team on aging players. Is that true or false?

 

The D Rays scouted horribly in their first years and they DID put all their chips in on old players. THat's a fact after those players were gone they were left with nothing and just now have started to scout properly and you didn't mention this past off season where they spent and spent smart, which will result in more wins continued with the success of their young players, They are going to be much better and will continue to get better for years to come based on smart scouting.

 

Everyone has bad contracts, How many bad contracts held The Marlins up last year? They scouted properly and spent money and traded for good players who came relativly cheap and spent high on a one year rental on a big player. That's the way it should be done but your telling me that they don't count because their are smaller teams who were riddled with bad deals and big money they couldn't maintain.

 

You never mentioned Cle in your past post, so I assume that you agreed that The Tigers were hurt by their foolish spending. Cleveland spent big in the past and couldn't maintain that much spending so they were forced to rebuild young something they didn't do well while they were big time winners because they neglected the scouting dept. It's called not planning yourself out and you can't neglect any part in Baseball if you want long term success.

 

The Padre's are relying on young talent and have holes because of their veterans contracts also as you know The Padre's have a new stadium which for some odd reason costs money.

 

Again with your buisness claim for those owners who are spending big, I assume then their not baseball fans because if Baseball was a buisness attachment to your product means nothing. No, Owners who buys teams usually do it because they want to and love the game. Of course you want to make money but those who are spending big ARE NOT doing it because they think they'll gain much more in return, they want to win.

 

The Brewers among other teams robbed their own city to make money, not to win but to make money which is why they have failed. An owner who thinks their in it to make money is going to lose.

3) Force FOX, ESPN, and future TV partners to show all 30 teams the same amount of times on National TV.

National TV?

 

I hope you mean have more regional broadcasts because I don't see many Cardinals(NFL) games on National TV just more regional broadcasts.

3) Force FOX, ESPN, and future TV partners to show all 30 teams the same amount of times on National TV.

isnt that what i said last year, that you in many regards disagreed with?

oh and yes.....

 

 

beane is so overrated it isnt even funny.

3) Force FOX, ESPN, and future TV partners to show all 30 teams the same amount of times on National TV.

isnt that what i said last year, that you in many regards disagreed with? not exactly what you said Das.

 

I would like National telecasts with one announcer from one team and an announcer from another. Remember The Baseball Network from 1994-1995? No blackouts, but the way they did the crews was interesting.

 

i.e. White Sox - Yankees

They would have the White Sox's Hawk Harrelson calling games with the Yankees' Michael Kay.

 

i.e. Braves - Marlins

They would have the Braves' Caray call games with the Marlins' Hutton.

 

That way you could have a national telecast, with no local blackouts , drive up ratings and get every team on equally.

 

The logistics of announcing and camera crews is the current excuse for missing some teams, but this would solve that issue for FOX and ESPN.

i said all teams should be on ESPN Sunday Night Baseball at least once a year.

 

 

did i not?

i said all teams should be on ESPN Sunday Night Baseball at least once a year.

 

 

did i not?

yes, but you said that SNB was the only national telecast on ESPN that you counted while ESPN has Monday Night Baseball, Wed. Night Baseball and Holiday baseball.

 

You also said games called by Buck and McCarver on Fox are Fox's only national game while they air four regional games a week.

 

I have a format for Fox or ABC for the next contract that would get better ratings and allow all 30 teams to be featured twice.