The ring or the dynasty?

by bloodshot13 on Jan 12, 2006 3:00 AM PST Comment 6 comments

I have been thinking for quite a while about what the Florida Marlins are doing, as I did after their first World Series Championship. In their short time as a major league club they have built winners and quickly dismantled them for prospects. They do not make great revenue, I would assume, based on their attendance, so hanging on to the big name players could be tough. I would love to win a world series as an A's fan(and would never be fan of another), but would anyone trade 2-4 awful years for that one year of being great or prefer the 5-10 years of competing and not quite getting there. I love the A's so much that I could not ever consider switching teams, but I can not help but think about how nice it would to win it all, since I could barely remember 1989. I know we are all A's fans, but that aside, would you accept the bad and the ugly for a few years to eventually be the best for one year. I know the Marlins trend will surely not continue, but if it could would you want the competiveness every year or the ring once every five years? Tough choice.

Poll

How would you want Billy to construct the team?

One that can compete every year, and eventually win it all.

66 votes

One that disappears for 4 years and then wins it all.

7 votes

This question is stupid because the Marlins just got lucky.

10 votes

83 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think you should change your poll

to really distinguish the differences.

You should change it to:

One that can compete every year with a chance at winning it all.
One that disappears for 4 years and then wins it all.

The A's havent won anything yet so you shouldnt put that. Saying "eventually win it all" makes #1 an obvious choice if it isnt anyway.

Bill Stoneman is about to be offered three seasons of a right-handed version of Vladimir Guerrero - Rev Halofan

by pickinmachine on Jan 12, 2006 8:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

No guarantee in "going for it all"

Isn't that essentially what the Yankees do year in and year out?

And isn't that what many other mid-market teams do sporadically -- engage in a rash of rash spending decisions for a 1-2-year spurt, and then regress to their previous thrifty ways?

The Marlins, both times they won, enjoyed Nico's confluence of luck and high performance -- with an additional boost of cash and relative lack of injuries.

Just "going for it all" one year is a high reward, extremely high risk strategy. And simply committing X dollars toward the goal doesn't mean that the apposite level of talent is available on the market.

@('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 12, 2006 9:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I would much rather

Have a team that has a shot every year than a team I know will suck for a couple years then get good.

One year, their shot might be better than the next or the one before it, but at least they have a shot, they are playing hard and keeping their fans in the game through September. Once you hit October, anything can happen.

I want a team that I know will keep us in the running, a team that makes me hesitate to make plans in October because there is always a chance of play-off glory.

Even if you structure a team to win one year, doesn't mean they will. Then those 4 or 5 years of absolute suckage were for nothing.

So give me a team that will fight with everything they have till the very last minute anyday. Even if I never see victory, I know that they were the best they could be and for 162 games every summer, I know we are in it to win it and there is a chance we will!!

"Happy Holiday's Billy Beane!" - Mychael Urban

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Jan 12, 2006 11:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Why accept either constraint?

With creativeness and health(luck) the A's should compete for the rings every year from 2001 on.

by Billy Ball 2005 on Jan 12, 2006 12:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

My vote...

I'll take exactly what we have right now. Winning, staying in contention every year, 88 wins in a "rebuilding" phase, etc. Is there even any need for this discussion? I thought we were all pretty happy with the team we are blessed with year in and year out. I know it's the offseason and all, but c'mon folks.....

"I have nothing against the bunt - in it's place. But most of the time that place is in the bottom of a long-forgotten closet." - Earl Weaver

by PosterNutbag44 on Jan 12, 2006 3:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Look at the

San Diego Padres, they have that mentality that every few years they should put all their eggs in one basket. They have never won it. i think they went to the the world series 2 times just to get blown out by much better teams (Orioles,Yankees).

The best way to have a shot at a title is to be in contention every year.

But if you're asking me what i would choose between a championship team that would suck for 4/5 years after they won it to a team who is always in contention but there is no guarantee if they ever will win one like the Braves. I would choose the one with the guaranteed ring.

"At this point I bleed Green & Gold,"- Lew Wolff

by BashBrothers89 on Jan 13, 2006 9:51 AM PST reply actions 0 recs