Giants=Dynasty!

Congrats to the S.F. Giants. 3 W.S. titles in 5 years!

11 times in MLB History!

Originally posted by RBHILL
Congrats to the S.F. Giants. 3 W.S. titles in 5 years!

11 times in MLB History!

Congrats to the team #7 in payroll.

Just think of all the Royals players they will be able to sign next year. 😵

Originally posted by whodey
Congrats to the team #7 in payroll.

Just think of all the Royals players they will be able to sign next year. 😵

The announcers when they talked they seamed so pro KC. Maybe even AL.

Originally posted by whodey
Congrats to the team #7 in payroll.

Just think of all the Royals players they will be able to sign next year. 😵

The Giant are consistently good. and they deserve to be paid. Their two highest paid players are Barry Zito and Matt Cain. Neither of which played in the post season. Their third highest paid player pitched a whopping 1 2/3 innings.
They won because they have a pitcher who makes 3.75M who pitched out of his mind. He was drafted by the Giants and is not yet eligible for free agency. Despite your claims to the contrary, low budget teams continually win in baseball.
Oakland, KC, Tampa, Pittsburgh are 4 of the bottom 6 teams in salary and they continually perform well.

Originally posted by quackquack
The Giant are consistently good. and they deserve to be paid. Their two highest paid players are Barry Zito and Matt Cain. Neither of which played in the post season. Their third highest paid player pitched a whopping 1 2/3 innings.
They won because they have a pitcher who makes 3.75M who pitched out of his mind. He was drafted by the Giants and is ...[text shortened]... , KC, Tampa, Pittsburgh are 4 of the bottom 6 teams in salary and they continually perform well.

Funny you should mention Oakland. Try watching a movie called "Moneyball". In it, you will find their secret to at least making it the playoffs, but going no further. The movie basically admits that baseball is broken because of the disparity in salaries.

Originally posted by whodey
Funny you should mention Oakland. Try watching a movie called "Moneyball". In it, you will find their secret to at least making it the playoffs, but going no further. The movie basically admits that baseball is broken because of the disparity in salaries.

It should be though all about who can have the best to dominate. If football was that way probably the Redskins would be the best.

2014 total MLB Salaries: $3,453,960,397 if I added without error.

http://deadspin.com/2014-payrolls-and-salaries-for-every-mlb-team-1551868969

Originally posted by RBHILL
It should be though all about who can have the best to dominate. If football was that way probably the Redskins would be the best.

2014 total MLB Salaries: $3,453,960,397 if I added without error.

http://deadspin.com/2014-payrolls-and-salaries-for-every-mlb-team-1551868969

If you look at teams in baseball, there is a bottom half and upper half in terms of salary.

In the upper half, you always have a hand full with losing records and in the lower half you have a hand full with winning records. It is the exact inverse.

What does this say? It says that the more money you spend, the greater the chances of going to the playoffs. It's just that simple.

Originally posted by whodey
Funny you should mention Oakland. Try watching a movie called "Moneyball". In it, you will find their secret to at least making it the playoffs, but going no further. The movie basically admits that baseball is broken because of the disparity in salaries.

Moneyball was about the fact that you can build a competitive team if you just don't blindly do what others are doing. Right now in baseball small market teams are taking advantage of good draft picks and young athletes. Your view that only high salaries win in baseball is simply contrary to fact.

Originally posted by whodey
If you look at teams in baseball, there is a bottom half and upper half in terms of salary.

In the upper half, you always have a hand full with losing records and in the lower half you have a hand full with winning records. It is the exact inverse.

What does this say? It says that the more money you spend, the greater the chances of going to the playoffs. It's just that simple.

It says that teams that are good spend a little more to be even better and teams that are bad say we are going to be bad so lets save a little bit of money. Plus teams like the Red Sox, Phillies and Rangers spent a boat load of money and were disasters.

Originally posted by quackquack
Moneyball was about the fact that you can build a competitive team if you just don't blindly do what others are doing. Right now in baseball small market teams are taking advantage of good draft picks and young athletes. Your view that only high salaries win in baseball is simply contrary to fact.

So tell us, how many World Series has Oakland won since the movie? In fact, how many have they even been?

None you say? The hell you say!

Once they get too good, they go to a team like San Fran.

Originally posted by whodey
So tell us, how many World Series has Oakland won since the movie? In fact, how many have they even been?

None you say? The hell you say!

Once they get too good, they go to a team like San Fran.

Kansas City had a great year. It went down to the last out of the seventh game of the World Series. They lost but not because of salary. Your narrative that it is all about salary, is humorous, but contrary to fact.

Originally posted by quackquack
Kansas City had a great year. It went down to the last out of the seventh game of the World Series. They lost but not because of salary. Your narrative that it is all about salary, is humorous, but contrary to fact.

Speaking of facts, when is the last time a small market team won it all?

Originally posted by whodey
Speaking of facts, when is the last time a small market team won it all?

Whenever they win it all, no one calls them a small market team. St. Louis isn't a big city. Often San Francisco and Oakland are considered one market. But here you say San Fran is a big market and Oakland isn't solely because one team won and won didn't.
Oakland and Detroit picked up expensive guys and lost in the first round. If they won you'd say they bought their championship.

Originally posted by quackquack
Whenever they win it all, no one calls them a small market team. St. Louis isn't a big city. Often San Francisco and Oakland are considered one market. But here you say San Fran is a big market and Oakland isn't solely because one team won and won didn't.
Oakland and Detroit picked up expensive guys and lost in the first round. If they won you'd say they bought their championship.

St. Louis is not a small market team. If you divide teams in two in terms of payroll, with the top half being big market teams and the bottom half being small market teams, St. Louis has always a big market team.

St. Louis could never have won a world series being one of the bottom 15 small market teams.

So what was the last team to be on the bottom half that has won a World Series?

Originally posted by RBHILL
Congrats to the S.F. Giants. 3 W.S. titles in 5 years!

11 times in MLB History!

Great feat, but dynasty? Not really.

In those 5 years, they missed the playoffs twice and and had only two 90 win seasons and no seasons of 95 wins.

In the past 5 years, they've been a very good team that has played amazingly in the post season. But I would not even call them a "great" team, let alone a "dynasty." The last baseball "dynasty" was the late 90's Yankees.

The Giants' 5 year run, notwithstanding their 3 titles, would certainly not crack the top 25 five year runs in history.