Originally posted by quackquack
You are an unprincipled joke.
The team you claim you no longer root for outbid everyone for Chapman. How bad can their finances really be? Of course you never mention that but you only tak about finances when it is convenient. For instance, when you talk about college football you never mention that the team you root for Ohio State has an "unfair ad fare. Just admit the reality -- your team sucks and does not belong in the major leagues.
Chapman is only one person. Do you know who is going to start on opening day for the Dreds? It is Harang. Harang was miseable last year, and by all indications is on his last legs. One man like Chapman is not going to change a team that is bad to mediocre like the Dreds. So what if Chapman pans out for the Dreds? Chances are he will either be a Yankee because he will demand so much money they can't afford him or they will keep him but will be unable to afford to build a team around him and still stay below the $80 million dollar mark. For a team who's best pitcher last year was washed up Bronson Arroyo, they have little reason to have much hope this year. Don't get me wrong, I commend them for obtaining Chapman, but overall they are simply a mess.
As far as OSU goes, I have said repeatidly that college football teams should be realigned. I am tired of watching my Buckeys march into Indiana, for example, and destroy them. For what? There needs to be more paridy in college football, and if I were a Indiana fan, I would have given up long ago on that team. Its not that I demand a championship every other year like the Yankees, I just want to be competitive. That means at least having one winning season in a twenty year stretch. In fact, I'm not even talking about making the post season here. Just show me some signs that my team has not given up on me, and I won't give up on them. Unfortunatly for the Dreds, that means winning and not merely obtaining trophy players.
As far as your "revenue sharing", it is a joke. All you need to do is look at last years teams. Those teams that spent around $90 million and above mostly had winning seasons except for a hand full of teams. Conversely, those below $90 million all had losing records except for a hand full of teams. It's pretty cut and dry. How can a team that does not spend as much on their team as the Yankees spend on their bull pen compete, with or without the idiotic revenue sharing? Its a joke. As the saying goes, you get what you pay for, but you would expect us all to believe that this does not apply to MLB? LOL.
I do not deny that there are "good" franchises who make good decisions and get more bang for their buck, but this only carries you so far. An example are the Twins. They usually break the norm and have winning seasons, even though they are below the $90 million mark. Then everyone looks at them in awe as to how they continue to preform so well. Why? It is because they are not expected to preform well, but the defy the odds anyway. Having said that, they have little chance of winning a World Series when team after team in the playoffs are stacked with more talent that you could ever afford. Then you have a team like the Yankees last year who did not make the playoffs. It was a huge scandel. How could a team like the Yankees not make the playoffs when they spend more on their team than most third world countries? In fact, that is the first time that has occured in decades and probably the last time it ever happens if trends continue. So do I think that the Yankees are run as well as the Twins? Nope, they just have more jack!!!