Elster88

]Just saying that there are different paths to succeed (or try to) within a system and that the NFL & NBA cap plans are putting up different limits on how a team can keep talent. I agree that it's not like the systems that the NFL or NBA employ are light years better. But I'd contend that every team in those leagues has a hope of winning it all under one of those systems. I don't think the same is true in baseball.

="Frayed Knot"]]It already has [affected the success rate] ... I don't know how else to explain what I mean. Certain teams will never win a WS under the current structure. But those teams have been competing for them and winning them despite the inequalities in the system - and have been doing so at a rate at least comparable to that of the other systems that MLB's critics demand be adopted as a fix. That's been the argument all along. I added the bold to emphasize the particular sentence. When did what you say in that bolded sentence happen? Who has been competing and winning? Minnesota? Oakland? They never won a WS. I think we're arguing two different things. My argument is simply this: A team like Pittsburgh, or Cinicinnati, or Minnesota, will not win a WS without some kind of salary cap because they can't afford to put a team together that is capable enough. There is no way for me to prove this. I can't look at the past 11 years (I agree with Edgy, the strike is a good cutoff) and say, "See I'm right", because the sample size isn't big enough. There is not really a way to objectively measure this. And I don't know what this means: ]even though there's many years of actual data showing otherwise. What data are you referring to? The percentages of teams that get to the LCS and WS? And, again, my main problem is feeling sympathy for some poor sap who loves baseball but lives in Pittsburgh. He is fucked under MLB's system. I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise.

silverdsl wrote: If I were a Met fan I'd be concerned about him pitching over the winter but I'm just a worry-wart about that kind of thing that a player might get injured and be out during the regular season. But if the Mets haven't expressed any concerns about it then all parties probably think that he can handle it. There is a (to me) surprising lack of concern 'round these parts. I'm guessing that any objections that the Mets have are being kept in-house.

]If the Mets were the 7th best team in baseball over a five-year period and made the playoffs 3 times during that span, I'd be pretty fucking happy. Like I already said, sure this would make for some exciting baseball. But the ultimate hope of mine as a fan is for the Mets to win the big prize. I don't see Minnesota doing this anytime soon. But it's true, I don't know a lot about them.

="Frayed Knot"]]My point is not so much "Who has won a championship?", but more, "Could they win a championship?" In other words; forget how it works in practice, how does it work in theory!! Not at all. I'm not describing what I mean correctly, I guess. ="Frayed Knot"]]My point is, there are certain teams that will never win a title under the current system in baseball. The same is not true in the NFL or NBA. Y'see what you're arguing here don't you? You're opining that the system is bad that it's bound to result in big differences between the results of MLB & other leagues in the future even though it hasn't yet during the time it's been in effect. Well get back to me when it does. It already has. I don't know how else to explain what I mean. Certain teams will never win a WS under the current structure. I don't belive that tallying up the number of teams that have won a league pennant is a counterargument to what I'm saying. I'm not sure how to objectively measure it. ="Frayed Knot"]]Most any of those teams can afford to pay the players they need, they just have to get them. With a team like Oakland, that has had the luck and the management to get the MVP caliber players like Giambi and Hudson, they have to trade them away because they can't afford them once free agency roles around. Yes, and they've dealt them for players who have (or they hope will) help them in the future. And again, the other systems offer alternatives which aren't necc an improvement. So you're telling me that Oakland dealt those players because they wanted to, and not because they couldn't afford to resign them? ]For reasons unrelated to the fact that landing such big fishies is a hit/miss prospect, it has become unthinkable that the Royals --- or perhaps up to two thirds of all teams --- could make such a bold move today. This is what I'm trying to argue. Edgy put it succinctly.

]For the first time in four years, a Wild Card team didn�t win the World Series. Weird.

That's post 6666 for Yancy. Interesting number. I'm a little scared.

I remember the first game this year when I started the IGT about 5 hours early and was worried that that was too soon. Let's see if we can keep this thread around until Opening Day.

="Frayed Knot"] ]Teams like Tampa, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Minnesota will never win a WS because they can't afford the players The baseball teams in 3 of those cities - KC, Cincy & Minny - have won more recently than their NFL counterparts. In fact the Cincy & Minny teams have never won on the gridiron while the Reds & Twins have at least 3 each during that span - including one each in the '90s. I mean in the most recent years since salaries in baseball started to skyrocket. ="Frayed Knot"] ]I also meant after salaries started to sky rocket, so I'm not including the WS teams with Kirby, obviously. OK, so then the 'last 10 years' numbers would diverge wildly. Yet - even with the recent run of NYY success mixed in (something that has become LESS common since prior to the draft/FA period) - they don't. My point is not so much "Who has won a championship?", but more, "Could they win a championship?" And it doesn't have much to do with, say the Steelers vs. the Pirates just because they're in the same city. My point is, there are certain teams that will never win a title under the current system in baseball. The same is not true in the NFL or NBA. Most any of those teams can afford to pay the players they need, they just have to get them. With a team like Oakland, that has had the luck and the management to get the MVP caliber players like Giambi and Hudson, they have to trade them away because they can't afford them once free agency roles around. And I for one, never thought Minnesota had a shot of winning anything. To me, they are lucky enough to built decent teams while playing in a division with a bunch of other teams that either: a) misspent the money they had, or were one of the poorer franchises. Once the Sox and Indians got their act together, they were quickly an afterthought in 3rd place. In fact, I think they are one of the best examples of my argument. An example of how a team with money can quickly pass by a team that was good but had less money.

I think the luxury tax will help too. George has got to be spending upwards of 300 million when all of that is taking into account. Could he really still be making a profit?

I know that my argument is hard to believe or even consider, as baseball fans. But the reason I feel so strongly about this is because I can't imagine being as big a baseball fan as I am and living in, say, Pittsburgh, for example. That has to suck. Year in and year out, knowing your team will not make the playoffs.

Johnny Dickshot wrote: ]Did anyone ever really think Minnesota had a shot to win a playoff series? They already f-ing have. My question was, "Did you think they would win?" That means before the series. I also meant after salaries started to sky rocket, so I'm not including the WS teams with Kirby, obviously.

]slightly higher pct of teams not to reach a league final over the last 10 years No, the story is the number of teams who have no hope of ever winning a WS. ]the success of the Twins & A's have been How many playoff series have these two teams won combined in the last ten years? Yes, I'd like the Mets to have had their recent history of playoff series, but I'd much rather have the Mets' budget than the execs that run those teams. I think most people would agree with me. That's telling too. I think most fans would rather their team had a high budget instead of one of the most capable GMs in baseball. The same is not true in other sports *cough* *Isiah* *cough*.

]Yet for 2 decades now it HAS been true in other sports No, it HASn't. It's definitely not in the NFL, a team can win 6 games and then win the Super Bowl the next year. Any team can afford to build a contender. (This is more a product of the way money is shared and because they only play 16 games a year, but it's still true.) It's harder to say that the same is true in the NBA, but every team has enough money to get the players you need to win a championship. The problem there is more when moronic GMs pay for the wrong players and are stuck over the cap for 20 years. Teams like Tampa, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Minnesota will never win a WS because they can't afford the players. There's a reason why the Pie-rats traded Benson for Wigginton (though some longtime CPF posters think that losing Wigginton is one of the top 5 worst baseball decisions in MLB history). A common counter-argument that Minny proves me wrong because they make the playoffs every year. I think that's wrong with the answer to one simple question: Did anyone ever really think Minnesota had a shot to win ANY of the playoff series they played in? Anyway, there are no such teams in the NFL or NBA. Any one of them could afford to build a contender.

It must suck to be a Cub fan today. I don't think they have the same animosity for the Pale Hose that we have for the Yanqs (there's no way White Sock fans could be as big a bunch of pricks), but in back to back years the only other two teams that had such amazingly long championship droughts won the WS, and one of those happens to reside in their city. Must suck.

Bobby also thought that Kaz Matsui would immediately be an above average player for an MLB team. Didn't Benny hit like .330 with 35 HR this year? I love Benny as much as the next guy, but I think this kind of shows that there is a gap between MLB and the Japanese league. Now who's going to be first to show Benny's stats projected over a 162 game season and claim that I'm being unfair?

Frayed Knot wrote: Over the Last 10 years: Champions: MLB = 6 different teams (20% of the league) NFL = 7 (21.9%) NBA = 5 (17.2%) Reaching the Finals: MLB = 11 different teams (36.7%) NFL = 11 (34.4%) NBA = 12 (41.4%) Failed to reach the league semis (league/conference championship): MLB = 12 different teams (40%) NFL = 10 (31.3%) NBA = 10 (34.5%) And over the last 20 years: Different Champions: MLB = 14 (46.7%) NFL = 11 (34.4%) NBA = 6 (20.7%) - that's right, only 6 franchises over 20 seasons! Reached the finals: MLB = 19 (63.3%) NFL = 19 (59.4%) NBA = 15 (51.7%) Did not reach the semis: MLB = 5 (16.7%) NFL = 4 (12.5%) NBA = 6 (20.7%) I've seen similar stuff busted out whenever this argument comes up. But these percentages really don't tell the story. The story is that some teams will never make the playoffs under our current system. The same is not true in other sports, unless someone like Isiah comes along and ruins your franchise.

This is fucking terrible. How could they promote a 16-year vet, when there are plenty of youngsters available who could grow into the job? Can we PLEASE give one of the rookies a chance instead of going with the sexy name from another organization? All this gets us is a day on the back pages of the papers and more bucks in Fred's pockets. You are all gutless, brainless fools if you think this move will work out.

Minky told jeering fans that they were right, and told the newspapers that he sucked. Then he didn't like it that Willie was trying other guys out at first? Show a little confidence in yourself, for one. Don't put yourself down, for two. For three, don't suck.

I don't remember specific incidents. I could look it up, but that would require work. I'm being the prick here, by saying mean things and not backing it up.

MFS62 wrote: ="sharpie"] Is there something up with the Giants press corps that they are eager to spread the word about the prickishness of various players? It was either Jim Brosnan (The Long Season) or Jim Bouton (Ball Four) who said something like (I paraphrase): San Francisco sportswriters write with all the accuracy of a three year old fingerpainting on a wall. Later That may be true, but IIRC, Pierzynski's prickness was well demonstrated on the Twinkies and the Pale Stockings.

Pierzynski is apparently one of the biggest pricks in baseball. We're talking third behind Bonds and Kent.

True. Though I think Jeff spends 450K just on cereal.

The organization had a clue about who to start at first base in September. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out, Minky.

Source?