Newsflash: The Earth is ROUND! I Hate the Yankees!
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 23, 2008 5:25 PM PST
289 comments
Well, for the first year in about five years, Billy Beane didn't do anything right around my birthday. Instead I sat around and waited for the A's to hopefully seal the deal with wishy-washy Furcal.
Instead the Yankees went out and spent about $424 million on arguably the best free agents on the market. Teixeira, Sabathia and Burnett all Yankees and a big F U to the rest of MLB. It used to be Crazy George Steinbrenner but now it's Nutso Hank. I'd normally complain about it but the truth is that money hasn't bought the Yankees anything in a long time. So it's not a definite that the Yankees are going to win anything in 2009.
Still if the press is to be believed, and I always use that caveat since I know that the press doesn't always report things with accuracy, the Yankees went anywhere from $10-15 million beyond what the Red Sox were offering Teixeira. They were ultimately bidding against themselves. I've had people argue with me, including Lew Wolff, that teams like the Yankees are good for baseball. It's much easier to say that when the Yankees haven't won anything. But I still think that a team that spends like that is not ultimately good for baseball even with the revenue sharing in place. How does a team like Oakland have a chance to ever sign a talent like Teixeira if the Red Sox and Yankees are the only two teams that are in that stratosphere? Hell even the Angels, which is essentially the West Coast version of the Yankees and Sox dropped far out of that one.
Still, I'll just argue that I still think baseball needs a salary cap. It will never happen, but I love what it's done for other sports like hockey and football. Yes, you can still have dynasties emerge, but it seems like everyone has a chance. Everyone will use the Tampa example of a team that is in a horrid market that has risen from the ashes. The problem is that it took the Rays years and years of wallowing in those ashes and getting tons of remarkably good draft picks in order for them to do their phoenix impression.
Listen, I know that it's never going to happen. Selig and company would never want a salary cap and salary caps are initiated from frustrated owners. I just sometimes need to state the obvious. I hate the freaking Yankees and the system in baseball blows.
0 recs |
289 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
There's gotta be a way to cap
Just like there’s gotta be a way for Ralph Nader to get elected.
Let's Go Fremont! clap clap clapclapclap
by SF Geoff on Dec 23, 2008 5:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Meh
Still hate the Red Sox more.
RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.
by walk off bunt on Dec 23, 2008 5:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Cap or no cap
True fans will always hate who they hate, dammit. And walk off, I’m with you on that one.
The first thing I did after hearing the news was tune in to WEEI in Boston to hear ‘em cry.
Sadly, there wasn’t nearly enough for my liking. Sox fans know, like most of us, that just because the Yanks spend, doesn’t mean they win. Their main statement was “Sox never get outbid, so we’re probably trying to drive up the $ for Tex, and sign Dunn.”
Honestly.
Let's Go Fremont! clap clap clapclapclap
by SF Geoff on Dec 23, 2008 5:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Definately hate/loathe/despise Boston more
Also, I think the Red Sox moving in on Teixiera influenced the Yankees decision to sign him.
by T-Money on Dec 23, 2008 8:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
im a sox hater as well
and id say about 40-50% of that has to do with all the media coverage they get, which i think outdoes even the yanks. honestly espn (and others) i dont give a shit what josh beckett eats for breakfast or what size bra david ortiz wears. stop covering every detail of the sox
"My group runs some frogloks down the hall to finish them off and POP! RASTER! If there was a way to scream louder than caps in EQ I was doing it. Man I am straight panicking because I know I have NO CHANCE soloing and the party has run off. I'm in my hotel room; it's like 5am, and I am straight hollering, in EQ and in real life. Bottom line is the group comes back, heals me, and kills Raster! WOOT!" -Curt Schilling on his favorite memories in the video game "EverQuest"
by travdog6 on Dec 24, 2008 1:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's the thing with the Sox.
With the Yankees, the media says we’re supposed to hate them. With the Sox, the media says we’re supposed to love them, which is just infuriating.
"God doesn't pay attention to your cute little hypotheticals." -- Jeff from LL
by oblique on Dec 24, 2008 7:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate the Yankees much, much more.
Always have; always will.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 24, 2008 5:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm against a salary cap.
For reasons described in the other thread about Tex. I hate the artificial parity created in the NFL, and I hate the salary structure in the NBA where more attention is paid to a player’s salary and when it’s off the books than the actual talent of the players themselves.
by mikev on Dec 23, 2008 5:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
A cap seems to impact trading
In the NFL especially, and the NBA as well. I enjoy that players move to contenders, or teams that need to make in-season adjustments.
"These Boston People Are AWFUL"
by Brillz on Dec 23, 2008 6:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yup, yup, and yup
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 23, 2008 6:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yes it's fun to have an "evil empire"
it adds something to the game, the Yankees are Goliath and all else (especially small mart teams) are David.
Caps don’t really reflect reality; some teams have more money, some less; that is true outside sports as well. I’m against individual players getting paid obscene amounts of money, but this happens outside of baseball as well.
Hockey is probably the best sport in terms of the economics being the most fair to all concerned, including the fans.
by halflink123 on Dec 23, 2008 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fun is in the eye of the beholder but it's certainly not fair.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 8:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's no crying in baseball.
And life isn’t fair.
Caps have their advantages and their disadvantages, but I’m with mikev, not Blez, when it comes to sports with caps. I have a much harder time caring about the parity leagues than I do about non-capped sports. Forced parity flattens things out.
If the Yankees were winning the World Series every year, the cappers might have a point. But they’re not.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 24, 2008 5:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW I'm not pro-cap, I'm pro allowing more teams into the NY and LA markets
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 6:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
I’m also pro-removal of antitrust exemption, which would enable/require owners to follow economically principled moves such as that.
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 24, 2008 8:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Same here.
Salary caps blow. The thing I really hate about the NFL is a team will have players they want to keep and they are willing to pay but they have to let them go because of the cap. That’s ridiculous. Finding ways to manipulate or circumvent the salary cap are as important to a team’s success as identifying talent. And when teams get caught cheating on the cap (49ers, Broncos), they receive only a slap on the wrist. Please don’t bring that to baseball.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Dec 24, 2008 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yankees winning 9 out of 10 years would be a good league?
And that same league would be better than all other sports leagues?
by Lovejoy on Dec 24, 2008 6:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Reading comprehension much?
If the Yankees were winning the World Series every year, the cappers might have a point. But they’re not.
As I said, if baseball were truly uncompetitive, that might be the foundation of an argument for a salary cap.
But in fact, neither the Yankees nor anyone else is winning the World Series every year….or even nine out of ten years.
The pro sport I prefer in terms of competitiveness to the salary-cap leagues is Major League Baseball as it actually exists today, not MLB (Nightmare Fantasy Edition) in which the team with the biggest payroll wins nine out of ten years.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 24, 2008 9:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hey I'm going by what you said
Every year is pretty simple to understand. I still don’t know what you think a competitive system is. If the Yankees and Sox win 50 percent of World Series would that be a competitive league?
by Lovejoy on Dec 24, 2008 9:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Once again....
MLB as it currently exists today is plenty competitive for me. I’m taking part in an online conversation about MLB as it exists today and whether it needs to be reformed.
Frankly, I’m not too interested in having a hypothetical conversation about some other version of MLB that is dramatically less competitive than the actual MLB. But, yes, at a certain point of uncompetitiveness, some sort of structural change would be necessary (though I’m not sure that a cap would be the best such change….it would depend on the circumstances of the uncompetitiveness).
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 24, 2008 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you provided the hypothetical
the Yankees would need to win every WS before you would consider it to be not competitive. I was curious what level of competition would be acceptable with MLB in its current form. I don’t think its crazy to think that the Sox and Yanks might win a high percentage of WS in the near future. You set the “point” as zero competition.
by Lovejoy on Dec 24, 2008 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No I didn't.
I didn’t say “until the Yankees win every year I won’t consider a salary cap.”
The point I was making was that I believe that baseball is currently competitive enough.
When the percentage of Yankee and Red Sox World Series wins increases, let’s talk again!
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 24, 2008 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The reason the Yankees and Red Sox don't win every year
is that the MLB playoffs make it structurally impossible for them to do so no matter HOW much talent they amass.
Not the ideal solution, IMO. It’s basically college basketball implemented for pro teams. I love college hoops and March Madness, but I get a little sick of Duke, North Carolina, UCLA, etc being #1 seeds every year. It’s hard to fail at those schools unless you are a complete imbecile or a criminal.
Sports are much more interesting when the top talent is spread around a little, if only because you don’t have Marvin Williams’s on the bench for UNC instead of starting somewhere else.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 24, 2008 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting how we went from "A's have lotsa budget to sign FA" to "How does a team
like Oakland ever have a chance to sign a talent like Teixeira…?"
Well one way would be to can Crowley’s inelastic ass and get a business guy in there who knows how to grow revenues in the market with the fourth (SF-Oak-SJ-Sac-SR) largest media market in the USA.
A second way would be to actually spend the budget on the best players.
Also Tampa is not a “horrible market”. It’s about in the middle of MLB markets by GMP. It’s a lot bigger than Milwaukee, for example.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 5:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
once al davis slips up and walks into direct sunlight, the a's will have their run of the city.
by jaylikewise on Dec 23, 2008 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He'll probably
Keep his head alive in a bottle designed by some evil scientist.
Stomp,em, stomp the piss out of em.Then pound the budweiser after the game. Joe Schultz Seattle Piolts Mgr 1969
by billyball1981 on Dec 23, 2008 6:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
those Coliseum consession stand workers of the future aren't gonna micromange themselves.
by jaylikewise on Dec 23, 2008 6:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and then he can beat Nixon's head in the next election...
…oh wait, that was New New York…
"I have more questions after these."-WaddellCanseco
by Gaijin_Suketto on Dec 24, 2008 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
qotm
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 23, 2008 6:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I chuckled
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Dec 23, 2008 7:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tampa GMP
= Grand Mothers Per-capita?
Let's Go Fremont! clap clap clapclapclap
by SF Geoff on Dec 23, 2008 5:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also Gross Metro Product
BTW I’m including Orlando but not Jacksonville in their market for baseball media purposes
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 6:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so now we got Giant Mouse Product, to boot
Let's Go Fremont! clap clap clapclapclap
by SF Geoff on Dec 23, 2008 6:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure we pull in Orlando.
It’s a hard-sell, baseball in Florida. It seems the Bucs are well-loved, but that’s gotta be in the last decade. I can’t imagine a great number of Bucs fans pre-Dungy. But, Florida is decidedly more pro-football (ala Florida, FSU, Miami) than baseball.
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 23, 2008 8:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How much of that is due to the 2 baseball teams in Florida?
One of them has been badly mismanaged until very recently. The other has an owner who seems only interested in collecting revenue sharing checks.
The problem with market size / market share, is that a team is responsible, at least in part, for it’s market size / share.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 23, 2008 9:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the distance between
Tampa and Miami is about the same between Chicago and Cleveland, maybe a little more. So I’m not entirely convinced it’s market shares. I think the fact that Florida is oppressively hot in the summer and the state is full of people who did not previously live here.
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 23, 2008 9:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure but so's Atlanta and so's Houston.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
(here, let me help you)
So is 9/10ths of the country in the summer.
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 23, 2008 9:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And if the Marlins were a regularly competitive team,
that tried to keep good players, or even bring them in from other teams, the people who previously did not live there would still not show up? They would still be as apathetic?
You for example point out that the Bucs have only drawn well recently. Why?
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 23, 2008 9:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Given the popularity of college baseball, I find it hard to believe MLB wouldn't thrive
given strong management. They said the “football town” thing about Atlanta and Houston too. Heck, Chicago’s probably a Bears town, but the Cubs and Sox do just fine.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wrigleyville would be pretty adamant
about disagreeing with you.
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 23, 2008 9:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well the Cubs are considered the team for Chicago yuppies while the Sox are
the blue collar fan favorite. The Bears are everyone’s team.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The motivation for a cap.
But the motivation for a cap in nearly every sport has nothing to do with increasing competition, but rather to fix economic issues with which owners often find themselves confronted.
by Pucking Insane on Dec 23, 2008 6:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The motivation for all structural changes in sports...
…tend to involve the economic interests of those in control of the sport. Claims that such changes are about anything else are just what Plato calls Noble Lies.
Great example: the BCS.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 24, 2008 5:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why I don't see the owners wanting to continue the current situation. It doesn't benefit
those who have to pay luxury tax and revenue sharing. The other owners are leaving money on the table by not exploiting the NY and LA markets as much as they could.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 6:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except....
1) The owners don’t have 100% control over the sport. The MLBPA is an important player, too (Blez is right about this, though I’m a good deal more sympathetic to the MLBPA’s point of view than he is). And one thing the owners learned in the 90s is that major structural changes are not worth forcing a strike or conducting a lock-out, both of which imperil the sport itself.
2) The owners and their leader Bud Selig are not the sharpest nails in the toolshed. Their understanding of their own economic self-interest is not necessarily a very sensible one.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 24, 2008 9:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt the MLBPA would have a problem with more high revenue teams and fewer
teams that don’t compete for the best FA. Salaries should rise no? Not sure what to do about #2.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's remarkable that people argue that the Yankees are good for baseball
I think that sharing TV and perhaps even ticket revenues to some degree would be helpful.
by Lovejoy on Dec 23, 2008 6:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's remarkable that people argue that adding $1.3B in value to a company is bad for anything
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 6:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is Toyota bad? Yikes I thought they were one of the best run companies in the world.
At the risk of political speech, I’m a public transport guy with no great love for cars, and live without one when I can, but I can’t fault their management much.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 6:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There you go
and like you say they added 1.3B to their company.
by Lovejoy on Dec 23, 2008 7:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but I'm a tiny minority among humankind in my disdain for cars.
Everybody else seems to love them.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I love/hate automobiles for the record
you can see my full fulmination at www.maxattainablespeed.blogspot.com.
All gadgets/mechanisms have their place, but should not dominate like the auto industry dominates our country. And speaking of “dominate” and “industry”, it cannot be good for the Yankees to have a huge, disproportionate revenue stream that allows them to totally outbid other teams!! Perhaps rather than a salary cap, just a fixed number of possible free agents that a team can sign per year… that doesn’t sound right, but…start the head scratching…
We get a TON of good ideas on AN. Might as well get to work on the “Sabathia/Burnett/Teixeira $400 Million Bank Bust Conundrum”
Officially awaiting the 2009 season.
by One won lost won on Dec 23, 2008 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather add teams to their market so that there would be a more level playing
field without artificial restraints on growth. The growth of the industry has been good. The artificially disproportionate benefit to the Yankees has not.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
move the Pittsburgh and Kansas City teams to New York
and let them die.
chronic
by Since1972 on Dec 23, 2008 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't have a problem with that. Or with expansion if you want to
keep those teams where they are. They do have fans you know.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 8:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate cars.
But only those owned by Yankees.
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 23, 2008 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's remarkable that people argue the Yankees are good for anything.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 6:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're saying you wouldn't have wanted to be one of George's original partners?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 6:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Heavens, no. There's more to life than money. A lot more.
I think this is my last exchange with you for now, WC. Nothing personal, but…just not in love with your style of discourse. Well I guess that’s sort of personal, but…yeah. It’s just not working for me right now. It’s not you, it’s me. I just think we should start blogging other people.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 6:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow!
That was candid. I don’t think that I’ve ever seen anything go down like that on a blog before. And I certainly do not have the discipline to pull something like that off.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 24, 2008 6:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Way to let him down gently, Nico
I hate when people break up with me around the holidays. Or around Matt Holliday, for that matter.
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Dec 24, 2008 8:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like to break up respectfully
That’s why I always try to do it publicly on a sports blog.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 24, 2008 8:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It did catch me off guard.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
they are good for
rooting against, regardless of opponent (unless its boston or anaheim). kinda like the pats in the last decade
by jaylikewise on Dec 23, 2008 6:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather root for the A's than root against an opponent.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One thing the Yanks probably realized about Teixeira
was what A’s fans were saying when the Angels were still in the bidding – that it was a double-whammy to get Teixeira, and keep him away from Boston, at the same time.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 6:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well the Red Sox can still go after Manny. He'd come at a shorter contract!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 6:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of teams on the losing end of these sweepstakes,
what exactly is the Angels’ strategy in not improving their current team while losing two major pieces? Figure they can back into the West crown no matter what, and then reload when Vlad’s contract is up? It’s a bit odd how passive they’ve been.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
they did offer tex something pretty close to what he took...
but yeah, it never seemed like they expected him to take it. and of course, they still have Kendry Morales.
by jaylikewise on Dec 23, 2008 6:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In their place I'd probably look at Dunn for LF/DH with Rivera and Giambi for 1B
I wouldn’t trade Figgins as has been rumored, because I’m not sure Wood can really hit like an above average 3B, but I guess they have to either extend Chone or bite that bullet.
I would try to trade Adenhart, Wood, Lambo and say….Conger for Peavy, since I don’t think any of them are that special.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 6:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ripe like a washington apple in panama
they still have good starting pitching… but those sails look a bit less wind blown
by jaylikewise on Dec 23, 2008 7:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ya the division is certainly there for the taking. But who wants it?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
not much has changed
If you look back in history, the 20’s, 30,s and 50’s were dominated by the Yankees. Even before free agency they alway had the best. Today they have to pay alot more for it. Now I know what it must have felt like to be a St. Louis Browns fan.
Stomp,em, stomp the piss out of em.Then pound the budweiser after the game. Joe Schultz Seattle Piolts Mgr 1969
by billyball1981 on Dec 23, 2008 6:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well the Browns and Athletics of of the 1930's and '40s were absolutely putrid. I can't think of anyone
that bad today. Maybe the Rays of the Naimoli years but they’ve been a lot better run since Friedman took over.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 6:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd prefer MLB go to an entire free market
Rather than a cap. Abolish the draft, teams go over signing anyway its pretty useless. Let the true talented people in the business work their magic.
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on Dec 23, 2008 6:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
that would probably spell the end for an Oakland franchise
in Oakland, anyway
Let's Go Fremont! clap clap clapclapclap
by SF Geoff on Dec 23, 2008 6:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup, since it's not like the A's have ever handed out the largest free market (Latin America) contract ever
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on Dec 23, 2008 6:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And we'll await the results of that move
I agree with your point, but that one contract can’t make the team. And I wonder how, considering our revenue stream, it would be justified? In a free-market league where the big get bigger and the losers are fodder.
Let's Go Fremont! clap clap clapclapclap
by SF Geoff on Dec 23, 2008 6:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be okay with a free market league
if we had relegation…
Then, the Sacramento River Cats would be in MLB next year, and I’d be a happy camper…
"I have more questions after these."-WaddellCanseco
by Gaijin_Suketto on Dec 24, 2008 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Aren't they moving to Fremont anyway?
Oh wait…
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 6:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Get rid of the league requirements as well? Its not really fair to other teams to have to play opponents like the Yankees and enrich them.
by Lovejoy on Dec 23, 2008 6:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except that they're one of the biggest draws on the road. They'd probably play like 2/3 home
games in a non-conference college style free for all.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 6:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be interesting. I'm all about free(er) markets.
What would the minor leagues look like? Would the minor league teams be independent of the major league clubs and sign the talent that no one wants at the major league level? If so, what would that do for player development: imagine a phenom prospect being carried on a major league roster right from the start of his professional career. Would roster size not be set and left up to each team to decide?
Lots of interesting things to ponder…briefly. Because unfortunately, there’s just too much disdain for free markets by society for this to ever happen.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 24, 2008 6:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, America is far too leftist for that
I guess you can look to the free-market-capitalist stronghold of Europe for inspiration there.
[In other words: It has nothing whatsoever to do with “disdain for free markets.” Not to say that said disdain isn’t warranted.]
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 24, 2008 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just a comment about Europe
that European sports is very free market, is IMO, very much due to how athletes are viewed. Workers if you prefer.
Athletes have the same rights as any worker in the EU. The EU has refused to grant any sport the kind of preferential treatment that sports in the US get.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 24, 2008 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've never heard of a Players Union in European soccer. Is there one?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 1:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No. not really
There are various player unions, just as there are various groupings / alliances of clubs, but nothing like the monopoly vs monopsony relationship in US sport.
IBasically the ruling where the EU ruled that athletes have the same rights as any worker, was the Bosman ruling in 1995 by the European Court of Justice. Until then, a club could limit to a certain, a player moving to another club, even if his contract expired. Those were FIFA rules. The ECJ basically quashed that. Also, the challenge wasn’t by any players’ union. It was by Jean Marc Bosman himself.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 24, 2008 9:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
best all-douche ringer squad money can buy!!
hank steinbrenner is a shrewd and savvy dealmaker. it must be tough for anyone to manage a major league club, but can you imagine how much stress he deals with having to walk around all those discarded wheelbarrows full of money in the hallways? my blood pressue is elevating as i type.
speaking frankly, hank is the defintion of a strategist. it’s like he has tiny little angels (made of origami-folded 100 dollar bills) whispering in his ear at night—i bet they adivise him to bid high. but seriosuly, he always seems to sign these big names with these big checks… it’s like clockwork. i wonder how he does it… just lucky? no, he is definitely a genius.
god damn joe torre makes the playoffs (steinbenner voice) and no yanks?? blasphemy! hmm… what’s a sharp second generation owner to do? oh, i know! i’ll just exponentially outspend everyone other franchise in the majors! brilliant! new year, new ideas! nothing says “yanks mean business” like $400MM in offseason transaction capital. speaking from personal experience, throwing giant piles of my money in the air and dancing underneath them like scrooge mcduck (and/or lil wayne) always helps raise my spirits! who wants a drink?
.
by jaylikewise on Dec 23, 2008 6:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think this is the best argument I've heard for adding a third and fourth team to the NY market.
I can’t see a real Yankee fan preferring to have a team built solely around free agents, which looks like the direction they’re headed. They briefly flirted with a homegrown pitching staff last year, but after the struggles of Hughes and Joba’s injury, they’re back to All FA All the Time mode.
I don’t think I’d like it if the A’s were in that position either. Of course I don’t really get the bandwagon psychology.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
they could be called the "Manhattan Mercantile Meatheads"
with “The Uptown Upstarts” as a stupid nickname
by jaylikewise on Dec 23, 2008 7:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not if they were in Brooklyn and Newark
Then they’d be the Superbas and ….er something Newark like.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So they'd be the Cubs parents
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
George Lucas should buy in to the Jersey franchise
Raiders of the Lost Newark
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 23, 2008 7:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or he can just buy the A's and move them to the city adjacent to Fremont
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"The Napa Valley Athletics of Northern Newark (CA, not NJ)"
Fremont just got surprisingly less wack… but not really
by jaylikewise on Dec 23, 2008 10:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm surprised at all the hand-wringing on AN
Sure, I hate the Yankees. But the disparity in salaries is hardly a new subject to baseball. The A’s weren’t in the running for Tex so why does it matter so much that the Yankees won the sweepstakes? If Boston or the Mets had paid the same money, would everyone’s reaction have been different?
Although I don’t like to see the Yankees carry a payroll so much larger than mid-market teams, the teams I have no respect for are the bottom-dwelling teams, who take the money and never seriously try to win: aka the Pirates, and other teams of that ilk.
chronic
by Since1972 on Dec 23, 2008 6:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
You mean the Pirates
who took their luxury tax money, and then signed two reality show winners from India?
Let's Go Fremont! clap clap clapclapclap
by SF Geoff on Dec 23, 2008 6:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that was crazy.
Let's Go Fremont! clap clap clapclapclap
by SF Geoff on Dec 23, 2008 6:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
singh and patel are the next big thing...
or was i thinking about CC and AJ? somethin or other…
by jaylikewise on Dec 23, 2008 7:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Singh and Patel are gonna be famous when their great grandchildren are elected to the HOF
Yes, they’re gonna merge their great baseball genes somehow.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Um...
one is Sikh, the other’s Gujarati. That’s never gonna happen.
"God doesn't pay attention to your cute little hypotheticals." -- Jeff from LL
by oblique on Dec 23, 2008 11:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's the 21st century man! Caste no bar! Religion no bar! Language no bar!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 12:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I probably would've had a similar reaction even if the Red Sox
won it. Every year, don’t you get tired of basically two teams bidding for the biggest free agents?
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 23, 2008 6:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, actually
One of the reasons I’m an A’s fan is because of the inherent challenge management faces, which makes Beane’s decisions so interesting.
chronic
by Since1972 on Dec 23, 2008 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
word
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 23, 2008 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get this either. I'd much rather the A's had more revenues and played on a more
even field.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yes, having more money would be nice
but it is naive, in my view, to suppose a level playing field to be an attainable good.
As someone said in another thread today, life isn’t fair; and in that cliche is a mountain of truth. I hate the artificially imposed ‘level playing field’ of the NFL, where all the teams seem the same and go up and down from year to year with little to distinguish the really good teams from the really bad ones. I can hardly bare to watch an NFL game anymore.
My recipe, which of course could never be realized, is to eliminate the bottom dwelling teams and redistribute the talent. Fewer teams with better players. That’s my mantra.
chronic
by Since1972 on Dec 23, 2008 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The playing field doesn't have to be 100%
level. But the level of disparity of the 1975-1994 period would be OK. There was free agency but you had a lot of different teams in the World Series.
I think the Yankees simply have been a lot better than everyone else in maxing out their market, and the NY market has grown gigantically since that time. Frustratingly for me, the Bay Area market has boomed too, but the A’s have continued to operate as a low budget organization.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's true
They’ve done really poorly with their media outlets, for example, which I’ve never understood. However, you probably don’t remember Reggie and the others leaving the A’s. I guess we need to count the number of playoff teams over this period and compare them to the pre-1975 as well as the post-1994 periods.
chronic
by Since1972 on Dec 23, 2008 7:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, the number of different WS teams and winners lately
has surprised me – and the Yankees haven’t won it at all this decade. But in general, the same 5 or so teams have opportunities the other 25 or so don’t have, kind of like the US as a whole, where 1% of the population has 21% of the wealth.
You don’t have to give everyone the exact same amount of money to make it 3% that have 15% of the wealth and give everyone else more opportunity to bid for Sabathia and Teixeira…Wait, I kind of changed focus there.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 7:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
1975-93 -- 17 different Pennant Winners in 19 years with 26 teams mostly
Dodgers – 4
Reds – 3
Yankees – 3
Athletics – 3
Cardinals – 3
Phillies – 3
Braves – 2
Twins – 2
Red Sox – 2
Orioles – 2
Blue Jays – 2
Royals – 2
Pirates – 1
Mets – 1
Giants – 1
Tigers – 1
Padres – 1
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How about since 1998?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why 98? When the Rays and D'backs joined?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think 1998 was a special year for Nico.
chronic
by Since1972 on Dec 23, 2008 7:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, it's just when the Yankee WS dynasty fell
and different teams started winning it.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 7:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
1998-2008 -- 16 Pennant Winners in 11 years with 30 teams
Yankees – 5
Cardinals – 2
Red Sox – 2
Rays – 1
Tigers – 1
White Sox – 1
Angels – 1
Phillies – 1
Rockies – 1
Astros – 1
Marlins – 1
Giants – 1
Diamondbacks – 1
Mets – 1
Braves – 1
Padres – 1
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 8:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, pretty cool that
13 teams have gone exactly once each. (And very uncool that Oakland isn’t one of them.)
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 8:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I blame Jeremy
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 8:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I did get married in 98
So it was a special year for me. Yep, going on 11 years this January.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 23, 2008 8:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
I can’t even keep family around that long.
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 23, 2008 8:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And livestock don't live that long
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 9:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Too baaaaad
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Dec 23, 2008 9:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So the Yankee dynasty is your fault!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
1995 - 2008 -- 17 different Pennant Winners in 13 years with 30 teams mostly
Yankees – 6
Braves – 3
Marlins – 2
Red Sox – 2
Indians – 2
Cardinals – 2
Rays – 1
White Sox – 1
Tigers – 1
Astros – 1
Rockies – 1
Phillies – 1
Diamondbacks – 1
Padres – 1
Mets – 1
Angels – 1
Giants – 1
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The difference seems to be that before there were a bunch of strong
teams, and since 1995 it’s the Yankees and everyone else in two different planes
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
but right now the numbers don’t support your thesis, unless we’re talking six Yankee pennants to four Dodger pennants. It’s something, but hardly huge.
chronic
by Since1972 on Dec 23, 2008 7:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ya and both the 1974-81 Dodgers and the 1996-2001 Yankees
were mostly winning with homegrown product. The recent Yankees are the first to try to win with mostly free agents and salary driven trades. The Red Sox did this to some extent with Manny, Beckett, Schilling, etc., but their payroll pales in comparison to the Yankees.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but
What you said was “But the level of disparity of the 1975-1994 period would be OK. There was free agency but you had a lot of different teams in the World Series.” Your figures say that, however much the means have changed, the number of participating teams remains about the same.
chronic
by Since1972 on Dec 23, 2008 7:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right. This data don't provide strong evidence for the
thesis that the playing field is less level.
From an aesthetic point of view however, I doubt that, if an all-mercenary team were to ever create a dynasty, it would be good for anyone, including fans of that team. I guess we’ll just have to wait till it happens and then worry about it. Who knows, it may be never.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The worse problem for me isn't the Won-Loss records,
it’s the franchise value — where the Yankees are worth triple the Mariners or Astros, for example, even though the latter teams have also done an excellent job of maxing out their markets. It’s just that their markets aren’t anywhere near the size of New York, and there’s an artificial barrier on new entrants.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 8:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Different levels of taxpayer contribution as well. The Yankees are getting a a billion and a quarter or some such number stadium built for them.
by Lovejoy on Dec 23, 2008 9:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, they've played the corruption card very well.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why Does Franchise Value Matter?
Disparities in won-lost or pennant or World Series wins might be the basis for a salary cap case.
But why should disparity in team value itself matter?
If it matters at all to me, I’m with Since1972: it’s more fun to root for a low-price team against the spend monsters.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 24, 2008 6:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I prefer the A's not to tie one hand behind their backs
It matters because it matters to those who control the sport — namely the owners.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 6:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Clearly it matters to them.
The owners are in it to make money (or at least minimize the amount of money they lose).
I really don’t care how much money any of the owner’s make so long as:
1) They put an enjoyable product on the field that I’m able to watch/listen to for a reasonable price.
2) The teams I want to win do so fairly frequently and the teams I want to lose do so fairly frequently.
Put another way, there’s some overlap between the interests of the owners and my interests (and particularly the interests of the owners of teams I root for), but the interests are not identical.
And whatever the owners might feel about equalizing franchise value (and my guess is that some would like it and most wouldn’t), it’s simply not an important goal in and of itself to me.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 24, 2008 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree that some would like it and most
wouldn’t because it means bringing up the bottom franchises a lot and maybe depressing the Yankees and Mets a little. It’s a net gain, not a zero sum game.
As a fan I prefer the A’s not to be at a structural disadvantage.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Folks have to spend more money on the product...
…for this to happen.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 24, 2008 7:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was agreeing with you, dorky-guy-facetiously-trying-to-be-hip-in-1985 style
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 23, 2008 7:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm honestly confused
I sometimes don’t grasp the shorthand. This is one of those times.
chronic
by Since1972 on Dec 23, 2008 7:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He was just saying
that th blz r fin/jing s.q.c.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 7:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
L7
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 7:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
{flags comment}
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 7:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but winning is fun too.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 23, 2008 9:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not really two.
But yes, you can basically bank on the Yankees, Sox, Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, and Angels being somehow rumored to every fucking free agent there is or will be.
by mikev on Dec 23, 2008 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I'm just not a big fan of whining. I'd much rather try to find a solution to the problem.
My solution is to add teams in NY, Boston and So Cal and pay off the current franchises with lump sum payments and elimination of revenue sharing and luxury taxes. Not eliminate the rules, but increase the revenues of the lower revenue franchises.
Even if you’ve got a better solution, I’d much rather discuss that than wail helplessly every time a large revenue team spends its money. It’s like a bunch of guys screaming bloody murder every time a rich guy buys a house.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well there is already post up about it and why this sucks for teams like the A"s
because barring a minor miracle Matt Holliday is almost certainly next….fuck, I hate this shit and it’s getting old!
by mrod on Dec 23, 2008 6:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I see no reason why the A's can't be the competitive on Holliday.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because that statement makes no sense.
"All your baserunner are belong to Greg Smith" ~ walk off bunt
by Philip Christy on Dec 23, 2008 8:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm....let's see. The A's have a $75M budget. They have maybe $45M committed to
players they want to keep past 2009. That leaves them with $30M to bid on Holliday if they choose to. If he gets more than that, they’re better off with someone else for a fraction of the cost.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 8:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Really, the best part about all this
is that the slegnAs got nothin’. And it’s sad when you’re rooting more AGAINST another team than FOR your team.
Let's Go Fremont! clap clap clapclapclap
by SF Geoff on Dec 23, 2008 6:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
So don't do it.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
free-agent wise
Let's Go Fremont! clap clap clapclapclap
by SF Geoff on Dec 23, 2008 7:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rays
You gotta admire what the new ownership group of the Rays and their scouts have done to put a great squad on the field in 2008. It took 11 years for them but the last time the A’s were in the World Series was 1990, which is 18 years.
You know the Yanks were under immense pressure after the Rays embarrassed them all season long by being in first or second place. Beginning with the fights in spring training.between Tampa and NY their is no love lost- George is from TB and has spring facility next to Bucs stadium.
Morada Mudshark
by Morada Mudshark on Dec 23, 2008 7:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Indeed.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends
If you think the playoffs are a crapshoot or not. The A’s FO has put playoff teams or near playoff teams together 8 of the past 10 seasons and the 2 where they weren’t close was the past two seasons. The Rays were only competitive last year. I’d say the A’s are a much better run franchise than the Rays, and it’s not even close.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Dec 23, 2008 9:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Given the way we've reacted the last two years,
I’d say a run of failure like the Rays’ pre-2008 seasons would cause AN to explode.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 9:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is true historically, but Friedman's done a good job since taking over.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 10:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Milton's in charge of the team?!
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 23, 2008 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Andrew is no relation to Milton, nor apparently to Thomas
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 11:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tagline of DRays Bay:
“Andrew Friedman > Milton Friedman”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 24, 2008 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm...
maybe I’ll print that up and go hang it on the Trop…
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 24, 2008 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a's/rays
the rays remind me of the 2001 A’s… only with a penant. i will always have love for that squad for silencing boston fans for one breif, glorious moment. and they did it with less than the redsox offered mark texiera (lump sum). FACE—beantown meatheads!
by jaylikewise on Dec 23, 2008 11:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except the 2001 A's were better.
(grits teeth)
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 11:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's just as well...
I hate the Yankee’s and the Sox. I loathe their fans and their sense of entitlement. I loathe the fact that they enjoy every single advantage that exists. If they spot a new one….they buy it too.
What I love is watching them slug it out and beat each other to a pulp….and then some little scrappy small to mid market team getting hot at the end of the season and smashing their expectations.
What is good in life?
CONAN; “To crush your enemies and see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their fans”
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Dec 23, 2008 7:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Go Rays!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
2008 World Series
I went down to Tampa to see the Rays in the WS and support their efforts after they beat the multi-million dollar Red Sox. As a small market fan (A’s fan since 68) I could really get behind what the Rays did in the post season against some great teams. Unfortunately a wide strike zone for Moyer and that famous bat of the dangerous Blanton did them in. I think the Rays were spent after the Sox series going 7 games.
Agree Nico- go Rays!
Morada Mudshark
by Morada Mudshark on Dec 24, 2008 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't hate the teams, but do hate the advantage the Yankees have. I don't really see what advantage
the Red Sox have. They seem to be in more or less the same plane as the Phillies and Astros for example, and below the Dodgers, Angels and Mets in market size. One could debate the Cubs, Giants, White Sox, Orioles, Tigers and Nationals.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 7:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Yankees and the Mets compete in the same market
It’s the Mets own fault that for many years, until very recently, they tried to pretend that they were a mid market team, and behaved that way.
Also, New England is fanatical about baseball.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 23, 2008 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True about the Mets relative non-competitive spirit
New England only became fanatical about baseball since 1967, and still the ubiquitous Red Sox Nation bandwagon only started since Lucchino joined in 2002. If their fanaticism was a historical truism the Braves would never have left.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree that the current
ownership have done a good job harnessing that fanaticism. But, they were already working with good material.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 23, 2008 9:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good, but not better than say Chicago, Philadelphia or Los Angeles.
To be thought of as almost on par with the Yankees is a pretty impressive feat, given the difference in advantages.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
New England is fanatical about all their sports
Because that’s the best thing going in that area that often has like nine months of miserable weather. It serves as a distraction from the snow, rain, ice and humidity.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 23, 2008 9:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I misread the last
word as “humanity” the first time through.
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 23, 2008 9:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The weather was just as bad in 1965 when the Red Sox were 8th of 10 teams in attendance, and
1984 when they were 9th of 14 teams, or
1952 when the Braves drew 281K fans for the season! and
1933 when the Redskins moved to Washington
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Second best distraction....
Alcohol is by far the biggest. But hey, they can combine the two in such excess as to cause the whole world to despise them.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Dec 24, 2008 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm the opposite, WC.
I hate the Yankees because they’re the Yankees.
The advantage they have is an unfortunate fact of life in baseball; I don’t particularly hate it.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 24, 2008 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Soy rag!!!!!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 7:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Let's leave the Chronicle out of this
by Englishmajor on Dec 23, 2008 8:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And they both come latte!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 9:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This
Selig and company would never want a salary cap and salary caps are initiated from frustrated owners.
Really isn’t true. It’s the players who would never want a salary cap. The problem with salary caps is that they are too often used by the owners to lower payroll costs to the owners, not to ensure competitive balance.
And competitive balance shouldn’t be as simplistic as payroll. On the one hand, yes, a team like the Marlins are in a smaller market than the Yanks, obviously. OTOH, when a team is only interested in collecting revenue sharing checks ala the Marlins, it is responsible in some part at least for its own’ problems with market share / size.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 23, 2008 8:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Miami isn't a small market. It's middle of the pack, about the same as Seattle.
Loria runs the Marlins as a mom and pop shop because he wants to, not because the market’s not capable of supporting anything else.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 8:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying that Miami is small market.
Just a smaller market than the Yankees.
My point is that teams are responsible, at least in part, for their market size. Market size / share isn’t some static unchanging thing.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 23, 2008 9:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you meant the Rays could draw from Orlando if they had a competent marketing program
to do that, I agree. It’s part of their MLB media market and not that far of a drive. Jacksonville’s more of a challenge.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oops wrong place. It still applies to the Marlins though. Just substitute Ft Lauderdale,
Palm Beach and Boca Raton for Orlando.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes!
But so are the fans of the teams. Does MLB as an entity allow its teams to just up and leave markets without approval from the enity? If it does not, the ‘in part’ portion is a constraint on owners that cannot do much if the fickle fan base just wont support a winning franchise.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 24, 2008 7:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yeah, sure
fans in some areas areas of the US are probably more enthusiastic about baseball than fans in other areas.
As for MLB allowing a team to just up and leave. I don’t really have a problem with that. But, I don’t see how that really helps the league as a whole in the long term. If teams are upping and leaving left, right and center, host cities are going to FAR less willing to build them shiny new stadia costing hundreds of millions of dollars with public money. Host cities are going to be far less willing to levy taxes to help a team build a new stadium. And long term, teams regularly moving is probably going to make it harder for them to build sustained fanbases, instead of a fanbase consisting of bandwangoneers.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 24, 2008 7:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tell me...
If teams are upping and leaving left, right and center, host cities are going to FAR less willing to build them shiny new stadia costing hundreds of millions of dollars with public money. Host cities are going to be far less willing to levy taxes to help a team build a new stadium.
…that you’re not actually in favor of taxpayer-funded subsidies to MLB owners. I am a fan of baseball but think that sports franchizes using the public’s money on things that many within the public (perhaps a even vast majority of them) do not have an interest in, is completely an over-reaching policy of government [as I thing most aims of government are].
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 24, 2008 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
for instance, very few people's buildings actually catch fire
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 24, 2008 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Loria reminds me of Charlie O...
cheap bastard that wins championships. I’m sorry. I wax nostalgic. Can’t say he’s not smarter than Billy Beane. But, Loria’s not as smart as Finley… Finley had three rings on his fingers.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Dec 24, 2008 12:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Beinfest is pretty bright though, and Finley didn't have to rebuild after each ring.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 12:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Beinfest and Hill are definitely smart.
They just don’t have the payroll resources (which is all on Loria)
"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."
by Blicks on Dec 24, 2008 8:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
You don’t agree that Selig and company would never fight for a salary cap? And salary caps in other sports are often initiated by frustrated owners with out-of-control player salaries. The baseball union has too much power and Selig is fine with it how things are so things aren’t going to change.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 23, 2008 9:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What is
“out of control” player salaries? The players would argue that no, the salaries are never out of control. The owners would argue that, yes, they are always out of control.
This,
You don’t agree that Selig and company would never fight for a salary cap?
contradicts this,
The baseball union has too much power and Selig is fine with it how things are so things aren’t going to change.
If MLBPA were weaker, the owners would certainly push through a cap. So that they get to keep more of the profits. The reason the owners don’t try, is that MLBPA is too strong, trying to push through a cap isn’t worth the trouble.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 23, 2008 9:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think they tried a version of salary control in 1994 and came out of it much the worse for wear
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know what Selig really thinks
but he constantly cites the fact that small and mid market teams make the playoffs. So often that it makes him like one of those dolls you pull the string in the back. Sort of like the David Stern saying “revenue is up.”
by Lovejoy on Dec 23, 2008 9:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's taking credit for revenue sharing, luxury tax and wild card
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And just a few years ago...
…he was trying to contract the number of teams in the league.
Baseball will survive the Bud Selig years, but historians of the game will look back and see this as a minor miracle. Selig combines the most narrow, owner-centric vision of the good of baseball with a singular lack of imagination or simple intelligence.
And I agree that Blez’s explanation—the owners have all the power, but the problem is that the MLBPA has too much power—-is not entirely coherent.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 24, 2008 6:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i'm not a big fan of Selig
but I think he’s better than Goodell or Stern. He’s an intelligent person which doesn’t mean he hasn’t done stupid things.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the number of teams contract in the next few years.
by Lovejoy on Dec 24, 2008 9:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Guess we just disagree about everything.
Selig is an idiot. Stern, while once among the five most overrated men in American life, can nonetheless run circles around Selig. Goodell is a complete mediocrity. Hence he’s a bunch better than Selig.
Contraction is neither necessary nor remotely possible. Doesn’t mean that Selig won’t try it again, though.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 24, 2008 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I won't ask how you define idiot
Contraction isn’t needed now, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be. It won’t happen because of some desire of Selig, it’ll happen because revenues will diminish. The idea that it isn’t remotely possible seems like another extreme statement.
by Lovejoy on Dec 24, 2008 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One point everyone is missing
The angels don’t have any exra money. I do think their owner is broke maybe lost alot in that $50 billion scam. All of a sudden they are not going after anyone and let alot of players go.
by Arcman on Dec 23, 2008 8:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's the Mets owner, Fred Wilpon who lost a lot
in the Madoff scam. Something in the range of $300M.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 23, 2008 9:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe the checks to K-Rod will bounce!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 9:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, the Fed will just bail out the Mets :)
They are already paying for the naming rights for the new stadium.
But seriously, MLB have claimed that to their knowledge the only team involved are the Mets.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 23, 2008 10:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ya I didn't know Moreno was any more affected by the economy than anyone else
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What if the Yankee's fail to win?
That would be the best revenge.
by Ran on Dec 23, 2008 9:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
What revenge? They're still going to double revenues!
which they’ll use to buy an all star team of ruthless mercenaries to conquer the universe
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When you get right down to it,
I hate the Yankees. Not the Red Sox, though there are moments (and I’m not fond of most of their fans). Not the Angels, though there are moments. Not the Rangers, though there are moments. I hate the Yankees. I’ve always hated the Yankees. Exponentially, my hate for the Yankees seems to increase on an annual basis. The latest spending spree makes me hate them more.
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 23, 2008 9:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Same here
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 23, 2008 9:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This was on the back of my car all of last year.
My Yankee-hater car.
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 23, 2008 9:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I kind of understand rooting for an overwhelming favorite
I rooted for the USA in Olympic basketball for instance when they were actually good, but I don’t see how a Yankee fan would actually prefer rooting for a bunch of free agent signings rather than homegrown players.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i like to say
it’s like rooting for Halliburton. some of my other favorites: the lakers, u of florida, usc, brazilian soccer, enron, walmart etc.
more bay area natives call the yankees their team than any other out of town club. I WONDER WHY? just one question: do they serve martinis and tapas on your bandwagon?
by jaylikewise on Dec 23, 2008 11:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Brazilian soccer. It's unbelievably entertaining.
Not sure how Enron fits. They were criminal frauds. Nobody roots for them. Not sure how Halliburton fits either. They’re not head and shoulders bigger than Bechtel, although they’ve had a bigger share of the Iraq pie. Any more on them would probably encroach into political speech.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 11:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i got little loose w that one
but i say halliburton for its “favored” status in wining contracts with no bid… smells of entitelement—sort of how the yanks can’t stomc missing the playoffs. enron was the jewel of wall street before being exposed for frauds… again, an easy bet and utterly hateable. and yea, brazillian soccer is exciting, but i usuallly favor the underdog by default.
by jaylikewise on Dec 24, 2008 9:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, that culture of Barcelona that Valdano refers to
is in very large part due to Johan Crujff, who played and coached at Barcelona.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 24, 2008 9:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh, reply fail.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 24, 2008 9:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Any reference to Crujff is cool in reply to anything
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
People all over the world root for Brazillian soccer
not usually because they are very successful.
People all over the world root for Brazil because of players like Pele, Garrincha, Jairzinho, Rivelino, Socrates, Zico, Cafu, Roberto Carlos, Kaka, etc ad infinitum. They remember watching those players, either on archival footage, or live. Or they have read about them. They remember, and hold dear, the moments of wonder, of grace, of beauty of joy that those players brought them.
It’s the same reason why many soccer fans all over the world have a soft spot for the Dutch, who for all their talent over the years, haven’t won much. Because of Johan Crujff, Marco van Basten, Johan Neeskens, Ruud Gullit, Wim van Hanegem, Dennis Bergkamp.
Soccer, even for its’ ardent fans, can oftentimes be a pretty dire sport to watch. Now, I love a well played defensive match as much as I love a well played offensive match, my favourite player of all time is the great Italian sweeper / central defender Franco Baresi, but 0-0 bore draws can often be the result of both teams playing safe and being afraid to lose, AND being crappy: ie, bombing long balls back and forth, struggling to string a few decent passes together, time wasting, diving as if they have just been shot, etc.
Because of that, fans treasure players like Pele, Garrincha, Socrates, Crujff, van Basten et al. Players who can produce jaw dropping moments of wonder, of beauty, of grace, of joy, out of all the
like watching shit hanging a stick
mundaneity to quote the Argentinian soccer writer Jorge Valdano, who was also a very successful player and coach. commenting on a game involving the English team Liverpool,
It’s the same reason why fans of Arsenal, after Arsene Wenger took over and dramatically changed their style from a team that would grind out 1-0 wins on the way to titles, started serenading their team with “it’s just like watching Brazil”. It’s also why many fans of English soccer have a soft spot for Arsenal.
Some also admire and respect the huge role that soccer plays in Brazillian society and culture. Brazil produces, and exports, a HUGE amount of soccer players. There are Brazillians playing pro or semi pro soccer all over the world, even obscure leagues in small countries.
Fans support Brazil because, to quote Valdano again, from this excellent interview with Marcela Mora y Araujo,
“I felt it was a betrayal to Liverpool’s history,” Valdano said again of the quality of the football that night. "I remember a wonderful banner in the Liverpool stands from the days when TV was in black and white – it read: ‘For those of you watching on telly, Liverpool are the ones with the ball’. I used to support Liverpool just for that.
"Like now I ‘support’ Arsenal just for that. Last night Barcelona played, Sevilla played. But of the teams I will have to write about, I chose to watch Arsenal v Milan live because of Arsenal. I like their respect for the ball, the daring attitude, the risk taking. Nil-nil and a 17-year-old forward [he was 18] – Walcott is it? – comes on for a midfielder? I like that.
"For me football has to do with a sense of adventure, with risk, and he who respects that makes me feel supportive of his team. I mean, when I see a guy wearing a Barcelona shirt in somewhere such as El Salvador, I suffer, because I would rather see him with a Real Madrid strip. But I understand it perfectly: I can conclude that this is a guy who is fascinated by the dream team and fascinated by the culture of touch, of attack, of risk that Barcelona has upheld for the past 15 or 20 years.
Brazil, in many ways, are, or were at least, the Bach of world soccer.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 24, 2008 8:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And the flip side is....
…it’s easier to root against a team that plays ugly.
I hate Italian soccer, which is a lot easier to do because they’re game is boring and cynical.
In basketball, it was easier to hate the Bad Boys-era Detroit Pistons than the Magic-era Lakers.
But style isn’t everything. At the end of the day, I find my most enduring positive and negative rooting interests boil down to the uniforms. I kinda liked those Pistons teams….in part ’cause they kicked the crap out of the Lakers.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 24, 2008 9:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep,
In the 80 and 90s, Nottingham Forest and Wimbledon were 2 small market teams that managed to achieve success. Forest much more so.
Whereas Wimbledon were very largely derided by fans of other teams, Forest were admired throughout much of Europe and the world. Because the mantra that their manager, Brian Clough used to tell his players before they went onto the pitch was “this is the ball. It’s your friend. Don’t give it away”.
As for Italian soccer, their rep might have been true in the past, it really isn’t all that true anymore in today’s globalised game. Every team nowadays is cynical. And is often tempted to play a boring, let’s go to penalty kicks style. And players like Baresi and Paolo Maldini showed that it was possible to be great defenders, without being cynical, and even while playing stylishly, if only people were willing to admire great defending.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 24, 2008 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just dislike the teams that consistently fake injuries
Italy, Portugal and Argentina are the worst at it. There’s nothing more pathetic than a fake injury.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 24, 2008 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take fake injuries over the A's fake health
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 24, 2008 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you.
You probably love Jorge Valdano more than me though :). The Romantic parts of my post, the view of the aesthetics of soccer, are expressed so much better by him.
If you can read Spanish, I highly recommend his stuff. Also, Marcel Mora y Araujo is also an outstanding writer on soccer, she writes in English.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 26, 2008 5:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well i learned something...
very true, they play beautiful soccer, and are also hugely successsful historically (perhaps as a result). brazillain soccer is certainly not as hateable as NY yankees, so perhaps they were a bad example… but they draw fan support much the same way… beacuse people like to see their team win… and if you’re from el salvador (which my dad is)… it is much more eventful and enjoyable to root for brazil in the world cup than to lament the fact that the salvadoran team is not competetive. plus the french are hosers.
ultimately, its the same reason you find laker fans in eugene- and steelers fans in boise- and hater ass yankee fans in san leandro. yanks are even worse because than those other sports clubs because their success in 100% due to cash flo.
by jaylikewise on Dec 24, 2008 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, replying to this now that I'm fully recovered from XMas
debaucherie of too much beer, wine, stollen, and alcohol soaked pudding.
The Germans and Italians are 2 very successful teams also. Yet, you aren’t going to find many supporters of those teams who don’t have German or Italian heritage / ancestry or love of those countries or their cultures.
If people only wanted to root for a winning team, they would root for those 2 teams. Yet, in much of the world, the Germans are (unfairly) stereotyped as a boring, efficient team. The stereotypical efficient Teutonic team. The Italians, as can even be seen in this thread, are (unfairly) stereotyped as a cheating boring team.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 26, 2008 5:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And despite my long winded and rambling post,
I don’t root for Brazil. In fact, I oftentimes root against them.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 24, 2008 9:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
not long-winded and rambling at all
I learned a lot from that post, thank you.
Batting 4th for the 2014 San Jose A's: 26-year-old RF Justin Upton, in the 1st season of a nine year, $250M deal.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 24, 2008 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
TY
If you liked that post, especially the Romantic parts, the view on the aesthetics of soccer, the vision of soccer as the Beautiful Game, Jorge Valdano expresses that view much better than I can, though in Spanish, partlly since I only subscribe partially to that view.
Marcela Mora y Araujo is also a fantastic writer on soccer herself.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 26, 2008 5:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You like soccer?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 24, 2008 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't everyone?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If that isn't sarcasm or snark,
yes. Even if it is sarcasm or snark, yes.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Dec 26, 2008 5:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I do root for the house
because you’re an idiot to gamble, and idiots deserve to be punished.
I hate the Yankees, but they deserve to have the highest payroll. They have the most fans in the biggest market.
by MrIncognito on Dec 24, 2008 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1... or if you prefer
This.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Dec 24, 2008 12:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Amen Blez
I hate the Yankees too and damn life is not fair when one team can buy a championship. The Yankees are like the neighborhood bully back when we were kids that had all the best toys and bragged about it and never shared. He was the one with first the Atari then the Nintendo then the Sega then the Sony then the XBox and it just never stopped. And he had every game to go with each system. The Yankees are just spoiled rotten. The only time in the history that Oakland has ever swept the series between the two teams was 1991. I remember when they had their subway series oh they swept their series too just like we swept ours. My name on here is just anti New York Yankee period
merry Christmas everyone and the Yankees be damned
by beatNYY on Dec 23, 2008 9:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Why should I share with you? I had to work hard at whining tantrums to get my parents to buy me those toys!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 23, 2008 9:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rooting for the Yankees....
The Yankees are great for baseball for so many reasons, where to begin…
If we consider that baseball is simply a mechanism of the entertainment industry – An ongoing drama with many epic qualities. The more entertaining baseball is, the more successful of a business it becomes.
Now, who here can argue that the Yankees are not incredibly entertaining, and that they in fact increase the “epic” quality of MLB saga? You can’t, they are. The Yankees don’t increase the entertainment level for just New Yorkers either, they are in fact so entertaining that they increase the revenues of the other teams individually (through revenue sharing and away games) and indirectly by raising the entertainment level of the entire concept of the MLB.
Do they reduce parity? Sure, but they don’t erase it. If Toronto, Tampa and Baltimore hadn’t been such terrible organizations who is to say the Yankees would have even made the playoffs so often? The Yankees are able to improve their chances to go to the playoffs each year, maybe that is unfair, but the benefits strongly outweigh the costs.
The Yankees truly are the evil empire, but would Star Wars have been at all captivating if the rebels had been the ones that were grossly overpowered? I doubt it, that is because nearly every great piece of drama requires an evil villain and the “underdog” of some kind. The Yankees are one of the classiest such villains we, by default underdogs, could hope for. In fact, the Yankees are so absurd that even Boston fans are delusional enough to feel like they are underdogs. (Yes, I hate them much more than Yankee fans for this reason.)
The Yankees and their fans take it upon themselves to have the viewpoint that they should be the best every year. Of course, their fans love this because the team is always decked out with potential – no season is without immense potential for them. However, I would argue that the other MLB fans love this too…Sure, we may say we “hate” the Yankees, but in my opinion most people actually love to hate the Yankees.
Its like Joaquin Phoenix in the Gladiator – man I wanted his character to die, but wow Joaquin, great performance, thanks for the journey.
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
by ChadGod on Dec 23, 2008 11:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
You may find their unfair advantage entertaining, but I just find it unfair.
I see nothing less entertaining about the 1975-93 era when six different teams won three or more pennants. Some of the greatest teams played during this period, and they were built from within and played each other in epic battles involving multiple great players identified with that particular team.
Reds — Rose (Yeah yeah), Morgan, Bench, Perez
Dodgers — Garvey, Cey, Sutton, Smith (OK he might be a Red Sox)
Yankees — Munson, Randolph, Nettles, Gossage
Red Sox — Rice, Evans, Fisk, Yastrzemski then Boggs
Royals — Brett, Saberhagen, White, Otis
Phillies — Carlton, Schmidt, Luzinski, Boone, Bowa
Cardinals — Smith, Hernandez, Tudor, Sutter
Athletics — Henderson, Canseco, McGwire, Eckersley, Stewart
A team with A-Rod, Teixeira, Damon, Matsui, Sabathia, Burnett — come on! These aren’t the Yankees.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 12:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
personally, I prefer...
the 1972-1974 era… when one team won 3 WS championships. It was very unfair, yet strangely entertaining.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Dec 24, 2008 12:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The A's won a fair (between clubs not vis-a-vis players) fight. And it was incredibly entertaining.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 12:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
completely unpersuasive
They’re unfair and evil but we should accept and appreciate them because its part of some epic story?
by Lovejoy on Dec 24, 2008 6:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
unpersuasive?
So then explain to me why there are 4 straight front page threads talking about the Yankees?
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
by ChadGod on Dec 24, 2008 1:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because they just signed Teixeira and Sabathia?
And Burnett I guess.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So how does this affect the Yanks' offense?
Upon hearing the news that Mark Teixeira was signing with the Yankees, I assume I can speak for everyone in saying one of our first thoughts was, "God damn the Steinbrenners are rich." Following that thought, was the thought that the Yanks now with CC, Burnett, and Teix are now sure to contend in the AL East with the already formidable Rays and Red Sox. As those who pay close attention to the stats would also point out that the Jays had the second best Pythagorean record in the AL last year. However, they lost Burnett and I don’t like work, so I’m leaving them out of the trifecta I’m about to present.
I thought that since I’m bored I could mess around with the CHONE projections. These are taken from baseballprojection.com and the CHONE defensive site. CHONE’s offensive predictions aren’t the greatest out there, but it predicts better than Marcel and since I like the defensive predictions, I figure I’d keep the systems consistent. Now of course, the big market teams, like BOS and NYY tend to have a lot of veterans so these projections can have a lot of reliability in that they have a lot of past stats to rely on. On offense, I trust most of the guesses in players’ lines except for perhaps Matt Joyce. Defensively, we need a much longer to hone on a player’s true defensive talent level. That means that guys like Longoria, Joyce, and Ellsbury are hard to accurately gauge. But hey, it’s the best we got.
Here are the list of the starting position players on each of NY, BOS, and TB. Followed by the name is their CHONE defensive runs (except for catchers which CHONE doesn’t provide and DH’s for obvious reasons), their CHONE predicted slash lines, and then their weighted batting runs above replacement.
Teixeira +6 .291/.391/.531 50
Pena +1 .254/.378/.496 44
Youkilis +3 .286/.388/.474 35
Cano 0 .300/.340/.468 26
Iwamura 0 .267/.347/.375 17
Pedroia +4 .311/.376/.464 30
Jeter –13 .294/.366/.415 28
Bartlett +9 .272/.336/.366 11
Lowrie +5 .262/.345/.407 14
Arod –2 .294/.397/.564 60
Longoria +7 .265/.346/.476 30
Lowell +5 .272/.335/.434 18
Nady –5 .273/.327/.456 20
Joyce +7 .233/.310/.416 14
Drew 0 .267/.383/.448 29
Swisher –3 .247/.360/.454 32
Upton +0 .282/.388/.439 39
Tacoby Bellsbury +1 .297/.354/.425 18
Damon +6 .276/.351/.417 23
Crawford +9 .298/.343/.454 27
Bay –6 .267/.364/.472 37
Posada .266/.363/.434 24
Navarro .262/.336/.380 14
?
DH
Matsui .277/.360/.443 26
?
Ortiz .284/.401/.555 60
In total (not counting catcher), the Yanks are –11 in the field, the Rays +33, and the Red Sox +12. The Rays are projected as 4.5 WINS better than the Yanks defensively. And that’s not counting catcher, where Posada is weak and Navarro strong. However, if the Yanks were to acquire Mike Cameron as they had been rumored to, Cameron would be put in center where he is +3 and Swish would move to a corner where he is +5. Doing such would bring the Yanks’ defense all the way up to +5 (but would replace Nady’s line of .273/.327/.456 with Cameron’s slightly worse line of .240/.331/.436). Acquiring Cameron would be a huge boost defensively to the Yanks and bring them closer to the Red Sox. However, the Rays will still be the class of the division defensively, no matter what.
That means for their position players to be the worth the same, the Yanks need to have a lineup that produces 45 more runs above replacement. In total, the Yanks are projected to be 289 BRAR. The lineup generator (from baseball musings) says they would score 5.629 runs per game if each Yankee met the above projections. That’s 912 runs in a season. The Yanks scored 789 in 2008.
The Red Sox don’t have a catcher right now but their other eight players total around 241 BRAR. For the Sox to catch up to the Yankees offensively they’d need a 48 BRAA catcher (Mauer is projected at 44). If we assume they simply resign Varitek who’s projected at a .227/.330/.389 line (11 BRAR), the Red Sox would have 252 BRAR or 37 BRAR less than the Yankees. That’s 3.7 wins less than the Yankees. Subtract 2.3 wins because of defense, and using CHONE we conclude the Yankees’ position players are currently 1.4 wins better than the Red Sox. However, if we enter in the Sox’s lines (and Varitek’s) in the lineup generator we guess they would score 5.580 runs per game. That’s 903 runs. Strangely enough, that suggests that the Red Sox offensively are only about 1 win worse than the Yankees. Counting defense, that means the Red Sox position players are actually better than the Yankees by about a win. That seems a bit off considering it’s pretty much the same lineup as last year and that team scored 845. Then again, these projections assume 162 games played from the above players and no bench AB’s.
The Rays don’t have a DH right now, but their other eight players total up about 196 BRAR. That’s a ton less than the Yankees; a whole 93 BRAR. Now DH is the easiest position to fill. So let’s assume the Rays sign Burrell and his .243/.374/.451 31 BRAR line. That still puts the Rays at a 62 BRAR disadvantage compared to the Yankees. The Rays’ defense bites out a huge chunk of that an approximate 4.6 wins. That means the Yanks would be at 1.6 win advantage based on their position players. The lineup generator suggests that the Rays would score 5.106 runs per game or 827 runs in a season. That’s 85 runs less than the Yankees. That pretty much agrees with the BRAA projection that the Rays offense is about 8-9 wins worse offensively than the Yankees.
CHONE tells us a couple of things. The Teixiera signing does give the Yankees a very good chance in the division (adding the third best hitter in the division tends to do that). The Yankees are now a very, very good offensive team, but still mediocre defensively (though a Mike Cameron acquisition could change that). The Rays are a very, very good defensive team, but are not in the same league offensively as the Yankees or Red Sox. The Red Sox are probably not quite as good offensively as the Yankees and not as good as the Rays defensively but solidly above average in both categories. These three sets of position give us a very interesting trichotomy (what an awesome word) to study in the 2009 season.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
by vignette17 on Dec 24, 2008 12:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
So pitching determines everything. It really is 90% of the game!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 24, 2008 12:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I seriously doubt there will be anyone (save diehard Red Sox loyalists)...
who don’t pick the Yanks to win the East next year. On paper, they’re, without a doubt, the best team in baseball. Of course, I discount all NL teams (to my obvious embarrassment the last two years).
But, I will say this… the 3 best teams in the AL will be in the AL East next year. If the A’s don’t win the West, they won’t make the playoffs. And, if they do win the West, they can win the World Series… because, obviously, the best team doesn’t win that every year.
Yeah, that’s my ticket for 2009… 8th best team in baseball, World Champions in 2009. Go A’s!
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Dec 24, 2008 12:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
this deserves its own fanpost
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 24, 2008 8:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs