Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Sports Forum

Sports Forum

  1. 28 Mar '10 04:00 / 7 edits
    I now what your think'in, but it ain't that kind of fantasy baseball. The kind I am talking about starts by taking away half of the teams in existence. That means those teams spending over $100 million a year go bye bye, ESPECIALLY THE YANKEES!! You know, it would allow for the bottom dwellers to have a reason to get out of bed in the morning. In fact, pretty much all those spending over $100 million have winning seasons and the those who do not are its mirror opposite.

    I can dream, can't I? After all, it's my fantasy.

    Of course, my other fantasy baseball scenerio includes blonds playing ball in bikinis, but we won't get into that. To get my mind off that, I just think about the state of affairs of real MLB baseball today and its lack of financial parody. It's only then that I lose all interest in pretty much everything including life itself. In fact, it works much better than a cold shower.
  2. Subscriber shortcircuit
    The Energizer
    30 Mar '10 19:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    I now what your think'in, but it ain't that kind of fantasy baseball. The kind I am talking about starts by taking away half of the teams in existence. That means those teams spending over $100 million a year go bye bye, ESPECIALLY THE YANKEES!! You know, it would allow for the bottom dwellers to have a reason to get out of bed in the morning. In fact, pr ...[text shortened]... much everything including life itself. In fact, it works much better than a cold shower.
    Instead of making a parody out of the game because of a lack of financial parity, perhaps you might try imagining that all players were created equal.
    Then your farce could be in full force while the blonds parading in bikinis leave you blind and babbling incoherently. Does this scenario seem more appealing than appalling at this early juncture of the season?
  3. 31 Mar '10 10:44
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    Instead of making a [b]parody out of the game because of a lack of financial parity, perhaps you might try imagining that all players were created equal.
    Then your farce could be in full force while the blonds parading in bikinis leave you blind and babbling incoherently. Does this scenario seem more appealing than appalling at this early juncture of the season?[/b]
    Actually I have given up the game entirely now. This will be the first year I stop watching my Dreds. It has been in the works for some time now. In fact, I have not watched the last three World Series. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but abhor what MLB has become.
  4. 31 Mar '10 12:49
    Originally posted by whodey
    Actually I have given up the game entirely now. This will be the first year I stop watching my Dreds. It has been in the works for some time now. In fact, I have not watched the last three World Series. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but abhor what MLB has become.
    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 advantage" over the teams that don't have equal financial resources.

    Baseball has revenue sharing; it has a luxury tax. It creates a divisions like the central with no teams like New York, Boston, LA. So you can play other lower budget teams and make the playoffs without having high budget teams take their playoff spot. Furthermore, high revenue teams have high revenues becuase they invested in their own infrastructure and now reap the benefits (something you also argue for when it is convenient for you in political discussions)

    If you can't compete there, don't blame finances and don't ask for more baseball welfare. Just admit the reality -- your team sucks and does not belong in the major leagues.
  5. 01 Apr '10 04:00 / 2 edits
    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!!!
  6. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    01 Apr '10 04:44
    yap yap yap....even baseball admits it's getting boring and that is why they are looking at re-alignment. You should look to see the american east get moved around and/or boston/ny split up.

    Selig himself admits that the current state of the game needs adjusting.
  7. 01 Apr '10 13:43 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by uzless
    yap yap yap....even baseball admits it's getting boring and that is why they are looking at re-alignment. You should look to see the american east get moved around and/or boston/ny split up.

    Selig himself admits that the current state of the game needs adjusting.
    My solution would be to realign teams based upon payroll ONLY. That would mean putting teams together around the $10 million mark of each other. For example, in the Dreds division the top three dominating teams are the Astros, Cardinals, and Cubs and they are also the highest in payroll. They should remain together I think. The rest of the division should break away such as the Reds, Pirates, and Brewers but should remain together.

    As for Boston, they should remain in the same division as the Yankees. Add to that division, the Angels and other high pay roll teams and you will have some parity for teams trying to make the post season. Of ccurse, nothing can create parity for the post season other than a little luck, but at least, it would generate some interest for the bottom dwellers. In addition, you sometimes get lucky in a short 4 game series. For example, the last time the Yankees went into Cincinnati, they lost 2 of three, however, if they were in the same division over the long haul of the year the odds would have caught up to them eventually and been dominated by the better team who were the Yankees.
  8. 03 Apr '10 13:02
    We can't continually put teams in different divisions based on how much they spend each day. Would you stop crying if we put the Reds in the same division as the Twins and the Rays? You play the Pirates 18 times a year, you get revenue sharing, you don't have to be in the same division as the real big spenders of Boston, NY or LA or Philly. People who complain the NL Central is too tough deserve either free mental health, franchise relocation or contraction.
  9. 04 Apr '10 02:30
    Originally posted by quackquack
    We can't continually put teams in different divisions based on how much they spend each day. Would you stop crying if we put the Reds in the same division as the Twins and the Rays? You play the Pirates 18 times a year, you get revenue sharing, you don't have to be in the same division as the real big spenders of Boston, NY or LA or Philly. People ...[text shortened]... L Central is too tough deserve either free mental health, franchise relocation or contraction.
    The fact remains that the three biggest spenders in the Dreds division are the ones that end up having winning seasons on average. Each of the three teams out spend the Dreds bv about $30 million a year. Perhaps for you that is not such a big deal, but the reality is that $30 million can buy some pretty fine talent. Granted, among the three the Cardinals are the best organization despite being out spent by the Cubs, but not by much. The Cardinals are simply better at getting more bang for their buck. They should then be rewarded by being placed in a division with other teams who spend equal amounts of money. I would much rather see teams be rewarded for their baseball smarts than I would see the Yankees just buy championships. Conversely, if you put the Brewers and Dreds and Pirates in the same division, the Brewers are the better organization and would more than likely dominate even though their pay rolls are comparable. Having said that, at least the Dreds have a fighting chance despite not being a better organization, and yes, I would stop crying.
  10. 04 Apr '10 03:58
    Money helps. But baseball already implements more than enough of what crybabies like your self want, The Yankees, Red Sox and Tampa are already together in the toughest division. Sure Boston and New York spends as much as anyone else and Tampa has a good young talent as anyone else. All three teams would probably be favorite if they were in the AL or NL central or AL or NL West. They already play in a division stacked against them. There is a luxury tax. The is revenue sharing

    It is time to put the blame where it belongs -- some teams are just freeloaders. Instead of making it easier for them (isn't the NL Central easy enough?) maybe they should just be contracted. Would anyone notice anyway? You are in a division with the Pirates. Is the only system that you think is fair is to be in a division with the Nationals and the Padres too?

    All the free agents in the work would not have been enough to be ahead of Boston and Tampa if they did not develop players like Jeter, Rivera, Pasada, Pettite, Bernie Williams etc. They also need to sign the right free agents or make the right trades and when they do (last off season) they fair much better than when they don't.
    Certain teams like the Yankees and Boston continually invest in their team. They build new stadiums with their own money. The put capital at risk to develop networks. They have been rewarded on and off the field. That is what it is and should mean to be a major league team. Some teams are a joke. They just take revenue sharing and pocket it never investing in their team. Instead of crying every single day able how some teams provide a good product realize that you team is free loader contributing less than their share to the sport.

    I'll watch Yankees - Boston tomorrow night. Realizing that they are too top teams providing high quality entertainment for their fans and the sport.
  11. 04 Apr '10 14:01
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Money helps. But baseball already implements more than enough of what crybabies like your self want, The Yankees, Red Sox and Tampa are already together in the toughest division. Sure Boston and New York spends as much as anyone else and Tampa has a good young talent as anyone else. All three teams would probably be favorite if they were in the AL o ...[text shortened]... hat they are too top teams providing high quality entertainment for their fans and the sport.
    Look at the division winners last season and look at they pay rolls they have. Nuff said. In fact, do it for the preceeding year. What is so hard to understand? I suppose it is arguable that if you are a "feeloader" as an owner you will not spend much on your team to begin with. They put their money where their mouths are. Of course, teams like Tampa and the Twins seem to want to be compettitive. In fact, both have broken the odds and made the play offs despite not having high pay rolls. Then again, how many World Championships have either won in recent memory?

    As far as the Yankees and Boston, I just can't wait to see which team will be in the World Series this year. The suspence is just killing me!!
  12. 04 Apr '10 15:33
    Originally posted by whodey
    Look at the division winners last season and look at they pay rolls they have. Nuff said. In fact, do it for the preceeding year. What is so hard to understand? I suppose it is arguable that if you are a "feeloader" as an owner you will not spend much on your team to begin with. They put their money where their mouths are. Of course, teams like Tampa an ...[text shortened]... t to see which team will be in the World Series this year. The suspence is just killing me!!
    Fact: more different teams win world series than football teams win super bowls. The Twins won in 1987 and 1991. Toronto won twice in the 1990s. The Marlins won twice in that era. The Pirates won twice in 1970s. Maybe I am missing it: when did the Clippers, Nets, Pacers, Kings wins twice? when did the Jets, Falcons, Lions, Vikings win twice. Ignore the facts. Cry about lack of parity in baseball. The best team loses a 1/3 of their games in baseball. Certainly not true in the NBA and NFL
  13. 05 Apr '10 00:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Fact: more different teams win world series than football teams win super bowls. The Twins won in 1987 and 1991. Toronto won twice in the 1990s. The Marlins won twice in that era. The Pirates won twice in 1970s. Maybe I am missing it: when did the Clippers, Nets, Pacers, Kings wins twice? when did the Jets, Falcons, Lions, Vikings win twice. Ignore ...[text shortened]... . The best team loses a 1/3 of their games in baseball. Certainly not true in the NBA and NFL
    Heck, my own Dreds won a World Series in 1990. They then went on to almost make the playoffs the year baseball went on strike in the mid 90's, the after the strike baseball changed.

    Suffice it to say, that the division winners this year will all be in the top 10 in terms of payroll in their respective divisions. In addition, one of the over achieving low pay roll teams like the Rays or the Twins will no doubt make a wild card and the likes of people like you will come out and sing the praises of MLB and how pay roll does not matter. Then they will lose in the play offs. Its like clock work.
  14. 05 Apr '10 04:10 / 1 edit
    Just for fun, I will predict the MLB standings at the end of the year 2010.

    American East
    1. Yankees (Boston is a possible alternative, as always. One will win the division and the other the wild card)
    2. Boston
    3. Tampa (Has a winning season simply because they are well run. Possible wild card)
    4. Toronto
    5. Baltimore
    Central
    1. Detroit
    2. Twins (Can't overcome the $$$ for a second straight year despite being well run. Also possible wild card)
    3. Chicago
    4. Indains
    5. Kansas
    West
    1. LA (no brainer)
    2. Seattle
    3. TExas
    4. A's (somwhat of an unknown since they are well run)


    National league East
    1. Mets (Granted, they are a horribly run organization, but their $135 is just too hard to bet against. Another subway series perhaps? Hurl!!)
    2. Pillies (Either the Phillies or Braves win the wild card. Their ONLY possible contender will be the Cards)
    3. Braves
    4. Florida (always a potential wild card because they are well run but I doubt it)
    5. Nats (no brainer. They are in way over their head in this division not only in payroll, but in being poorly run)
    Central
    1. Cubs (Granted, I hate to do this because they are not only poorly run, they are cursed. I think perhaps they can beat out the Cards just this once)
    2. Cards (Best of the best run ball clubs in MLB. Hate to bet against them)
    3. Breweres (have another good year, but who cares?)_
    4. Houston (Due to cut payroll and sliding fast)
    5. Reds (Hey, we are not in last place!!)
    6. Pirates (abysmal)
    West
    1. LA (No brainer. No one else comes close)
    2. Giants
    3. Rockies (had the wild card last year but not again)
    4. Arizona
    5. Padres.
  15. 05 Apr '10 14:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    Just for fun, I will predict the MLB standings at the end of the year 2010.

    American East
    1. Yankees (Boston is a possible alternative, as always. One will win the division and the other the wild card)
    2. Boston
    3. Tampa (Has a winning season simply because they are well run. Possible wild card)
    4. Toronto
    5. Baltimore
    Central
    1. Detroit
    2. Twins ( ...[text shortened]... e)
    2. Giants
    3. Rockies (had the wild card last year but not again)
    4. Arizona
    5. Padres.
    Your predictions would be more accurate, interesting and convincing if you looked at the quality of players on the team. For example, I too picked the Twins for second place even though the Twins are actually spending more money than ever (perhaps you saw the Joe Mauer contract and the new stadium) but with Morneau coming off an injury and Nathan out for the year it might be hard to repeat.
    Of course, the real joke is that no matter who wins you will say it is becuase of money. For instance, the White Sox (big market?), Detroit and Mariners (spend money) have real chances of being new teams that win their division in 2010 and if they do you'll argue that they dod it just becuase they spend money. Ten years ago you'd have argued that Philly was too small a market to ever compete. There are just no principles in your arguements.