Originally posted by shortcircuit Hey, I have this really neat bridge I'd like to sell you. I also have a beautiful piece of swampland that has your name on it. Spend and it can be yours. Bound to make a profit, because you are spending first. I'm sure you will want to advertise it too...a lot!! Buy more ads, sell it for more...right?
Perhaps you don't like the reality but teams that have invested in their own infrastructure (Yankees, Red Sox, Braves) have (1) been in the playoffs consistently (2) have developed tremendous revenue streams (3) are worth a fortune as a franchise and as TV networks. Steinbrenner bought the Yankees for 10M in 1973 now they are worth 1B and the YES network is worth close to 3B. He fields a competitive teams and he made boat loads of money. So make fun all you want but it is pretty simple to see how the profitable teams made money.
Originally posted by jofaz Perhaps you don't like the reality but teams that have invested in their own infrastructure (Yankees, Red Sox, Braves) have (1) been in the playoffs consistently (2) have developed tremendous revenue streams (3) are worth a fortune as a franchise and as TV networks. Steinbrenner bought the Yankees for 10M in 1973 now they are worth 1B and the YES network is w ...[text shortened]... . So make fun all you want but it is pretty simple to see how the profitable teams made money.
Ok genius. Explain the Cubs, White Sox, Cardinals, Astros, Rangers, and Mets, Dodgers and Giants. They are all invested heavily and have been playoff and World Series participants (well, not the Cubs š ). Then explain how the Marlins & Diamondbacks have more World Series crowns than most of the teams above? They have historically had lowest average revenue teams with lowest payroll, yet managed to win. How about the Pittsburgh Pirates and Detroit Tigers? Investment does not guarantee World Championships. Go ask Steinbrenner when he won it last and he has the largest investment every single year.
I did not say investment guarntees anything but I can say that certain teams that don't invest and are continually bad should not blame the system they should blame themselves (Pittsburgh, Montreal/ Washington, until recently Pittsburgh). The nice thing about baseball is a lot of teams are working hard to field real quality.
As for the teams you named, the explanations for sucess is not that complex. The Mets have their own Network and the Cubs station is broadcasted nationally. So they would be good examples of teams with an effective infrastructure who are both favorites in their divisions.
The Dodgers spent a lot of money on Andruw Jones and Joe Torre to supplement an excellent farm system. The Tigers went from terrible to a top notch team when they started spending money and after a disappointing season added two more major pieces this off season. When the Astors spent money on Beltran, Clemens, Pettitte they were a lot better than they are now. The Marlins had much higher payrolls when they won and the DiamondBacks have two top notch starters.
Originally posted by jofaz I did not say investment guarntees anything but I can say that certain teams that don't invest and are continually bad should not blame the system they should blame themselves (Pittsburgh, Montreal/ Washington, until recently Pittsburgh). The nice thing about baseball is a lot of teams are working hard to field real quality.
As for the teams you named, the ...[text shortened]... arlins had much higher payrolls when they won and the DiamondBacks have two top notch starters.
Go recheck your facts on the Marlins. THeir payroll was miniscule when they won it the first time. It was middle of the pack when they won their second. The D-backs had a small payroll as did the Rockies. Not anymore, however for the Rockies with all of their long term contracts.
Teams cheat their fans when they unload players instead of paying them. Those teams are simply a joke.
I am glad the Rockies are choosing to pay their players. But when evaluating a team, the value of the player not just what you pay his is important. For instance, the Rockies had many very promsing young platers. In the future they will have to pay them a lot more even if they are the same quality of ball player. But as far as quality of players younger players (lower budget) a the same guys a few years later (higher budget) is not the important distinction.
Originally posted by shortcircuit Go recheck your facts on the Marlins. THeir payroll was miniscule when they won it the first time. It was middle of the pack when they won their second. The D-backs had a small payroll as did the Rockies. Not anymore, however for the Rockies with all of their long term contracts.
Hey we had to do something...otherwise you know the Yankees and the Red Sox would be hopping all over Holliday and Tulo!
Originally posted by nmdavidb Hey we had to do something...otherwise you know the Yankees and the Red Sox would be hopping all over Holliday and Tulo!
Dave
The Rocks have the lumberyard, no doubt. I want to see if they can keep the opposing teams in the yard. I still think their pitching is suspect as hell. I believe they had a miracle year on the hill last year. We shall see though. š
Originally posted by shortcircuit The Rocks have the lumberyard, no doubt. I want to see if they can keep the opposing teams in the yard. I still think their pitching is suspect as hell. I believe they had a miracle year on the hill last year. We shall see though. š
Our pitching does suck...look how many games were blown by our savers.
Your right though...we got the bats...i just wish we had made some effort to get some of the free agent pitchers that were up in the off season.
I don't see us making it back to the WS but I think we might still make the playoffs.
MLB contract scale
07 Mar '08 03:52
Back to Top