Sports
05 Oct 09
23 Oct 09
Originally posted by whodeySee, but that's why Philly has to beat the Yankees. If you beat the 200 million dollar team, then you get respect. We don't get much of that around the country.
I picked the Yankees to take it all. Granted, I picked the Cardinals to play with them but one out of two ain't bad.
So how do I know that the Yankees will win? All I can say is that the Yankees have not won a world series since 2002 so they are due. That is simply unacceptable and mind boggling for a team that spends $200 million a year. The front office should be ashamed.
27 Oct 09
5 edits
Originally posted by gregsflatIf the Yankees lose, you still don't get respect. What will happen is you will have all the analysts wonder how the $200 million dollar team under preformed once again. You see, king George bought this series long ago. Now it is his for the taking unless he blows it. Of course, the only reason the Phillies stand a chance is that they themselves are a high pay roll team at over $110 million a year. Considreing this, they don't get any respect from me because they got where they are picking on lowly pay roll teams like my Dreds. Put them all on a level playing field and then lets see how they preform. My guess is they would not be going to a world series just as the Yankees would not be going either.
See, but that's why Philly has to beat the Yankees. If you beat the 200 million dollar team, then you get respect. We don't get much of that around the country.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by whodeyNew York has invested a lot of money in their teams. They had over 7 million people at the ball park in 2008 and instead of taking the fans for granted built new stadiums. They Yankees invested in what they believed were the best two pitchers available and the top position player, the kept some young talent and developed a team. It did not work as well for the Mets. They created Networks; they have huge fan bases and their rating in NY blow away the rating of other New York sports. The Yankees now are in the World Series and they play a team that won the World Series and also added Cliff Lee. Baseball makes sense the best teams are in the best markets (both in terms of biggest and where fans love baseball first). The future is bright when NY, LA and other top markets have top teams. Either enjoy the game or cry about your stupid Reds somewhere else. They are so well managed they were competing with Pittsburgh for last place. I hope Lebron leaves so you can tell me which of your teams Reds, Indians, Lebronless Cavs or Browns has the brightest future. Maybe then you'll appreciate the ridiculous competitive advantage your Buckeyes have.
If the Yankees lose, you still don't get respect. What will happen is you will have all the analysts wonder how the $200 million dollar team under preformed once again. You see, king George bought this series long ago. Now it is his for the taking unless he blows it. Of course, the only reason the Phillies stand a chance is that they themselves are a high ...[text shortened]... ss is they would not be going to a world series just as the Yankees would not be going either.
27 Oct 09
4 edits
If baseball had just been invented, and a group of owners got together to form a league, what would be the most profitable approach for everyone?
Would they aim for complete parity? -- so each of the 30 teams would be almost equally likely to win at the beginning of a typical season. You wouldn't have any really bad teams, all teams would be above .500 about half the time -- but you wouldn't any really good teams either. It would actually be kind of like the national league is this year minus the Phillies and Nationals. (Even the Dodgers seemed to have a ho-hum quality about them)
Or would it be more profitable to have a small number of really strong franchises? - with each of the giants chasing after Legendary Greatness, with everyone else hoping to be the David that slays these Goliaths. Although making sure there's enough parity so that almost everyone remains in the playoff hunt until at least mid-September. Seems like this approach would produce the story-lines that would draw lots of people to the sport and thus produce the most profits. So far, this model has worked quite well for the sport.
28 Oct 09
Sure thought this was going to be Scoiscia's year for the ring. This series will be interesting. Philly's bats can hang with the Yankees. I think Philly's bullpen is straightened out, although when you have Mo in the pen, you must have at least a slight edge. Starting pitching would appear to favor the Yankees, however, i believe the key to the series may just be Pedro Martinez. He has enough guile, and history to beat the Yankees. Sabbathia vs. lee in Game 1 should be a pretty good one. Since I thought the Angels would win it all, it only makes sense to pick the team that beat them, so reluctantly, I will project a Yankees win, although I will root for the Phillies and be overjoyed if the Phils win it.
28 Oct 09
Originally posted by shortcircuitThank good ness things don't hinge on what "short circuit" thinks!
Sure thought this was going to be Scoiscia's year for the ring. This series will be interesting. Philly's bats can hang with the Yankees. I think Philly's bullpen is straightened out, although when you have Mo in the pen, you must have at least a slight edge. Starting pitching would appear to favor the Yankees, however, i believe the key to the series m ...[text shortened]... ct a Yankees win, although I will root for the Phillies and be overjoyed if the Phils win it.
28 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackThe Mets are simply a badly run organization. Therefore, they don't get as much for their dollars as a well run franchise.
New York has invested a lot of money in their teams. They had over 7 million people at the ball park in 2008 and instead of taking the fans for granted built new stadiums. They Yankees invested in what they believed were the best two pitchers available and the top position player, the kept some young talent and developed a team. It did not work as well ...[text shortened]... future. Maybe then you'll appreciate the ridiculous competitive advantage your Buckeyes have.
As for my Reds, I speak for ALL small market teams such as Pittsburg, the Royals, the Nationals etc, who will never see the light of day.
As for my Buckeyes, I have been a proponent on here regarding them playing competitive teams. I hate it when they play a MAC team, for example. I also hate it when the Big Ten has to march down to the Rose Bowl every year and get their arses kicked by USC. As a result, I would favor ending the tradition of sending a Big Ten school to the Rose Bowl even though it would diminish the Big Ten and my Buckeyes. After all, a Big Ten team has not beaten USC for over 30 years and the average point spread of victory is around 30 points. Do we really want MLB to be the same? No doubt, you do. As for the rest of us who are fans of small market teams and who can't just give up your team in order to follow competitive teams, I propose the following. Ignore MLB because it is ignoring you. Turn off the sets and let the big dogs duke it out year after year after mind numbing year.
28 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesNo, which is why things are the way they are. Think about it. What works best for the players? It is to make as much as they can, thus, if you are good enough, you too can be a Yankee. I am not an Indains fan, but I hear many of them lamenting that the two starters in the World Series were once Indains who had contracts that were ended which extended to 2010.
[b]If baseball had just been invented, and a group of owners got together to form a league, what would be the most profitable approach for everyone?
Would they aim for complete parity? --
As for the owners, they simply spend money as they see fit. There are no salary caps and the ones that don't want to spend to be competitive are even given money to help compensate their inability or unwillingness to compete. It is a form of welfare that I think many dead beat owners relish.
As for the media, which teams do you want to see succeed? Is it a big market team with big market ratings or is it a small market team with small market ratings?
The fix is in as the almighty dollar dictates who will be competitve year after year. As with most other things in life, the love of money ruins everything.
As for the fans of small market teams, I say stop going to games and stop watching. Let empty stadiums be our voice because it is the only power the fans have.
28 Oct 09
1 edit
A lot of the teams in playoffs seem to contribue more than 1/30 of the sport and a lot of teams outside the playoffs don't really pull their weight. I think that if some small market teams take your ideas seriously (and there might be an argument that Pittsburgh and some others act as if it is pointless to put a competitive team on the field) and if fans in certain markets take your ideas seriously and stay away then there is an excellent solution -- contraction. It would allow what little talent these team have to be added to teams that care. Just because every state gets two senatorial votes does not mean that a big cow town which refuses to spend money, makes poor drafting decisions, has apathetic fans and pockets revenue sharing deserves a world class baseball team.
P.S. just because you are bad does not mean you are in a small market. (Nationals)
28 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAs for the fans of small market teams, I say stop going to games and stop watching. Let empty stadiums be our voice because it is the only power the fans have
No, which is why things are the way they are. Think about it. What works best for the players? It is to make as much as they can, thus, if you are good enough, you too can be a Yankee. I am not an Indains fan, but I hear many of them lamenting that the two starters in the World Series were once Indains who had contracts that were ended which extended to 2 and stop watching. Let empty stadiums be our voice because it is the only power the fans have.
And then those teams would be forced to move to better markets (as was the case when Montreal moved to Washington). I'm surprised this hasn't been happening more than it has.
Or else a few of these teams could just dissolve. MLB would probably be better off if it contracted to 28 or 26 teams. Or the mere threat of moving or dissolving could be just the thing to energize an apathetic fan base.
The fix is in as the almighty dollar dictates who will be competitve year after year. As with most other things in life, the love of money ruins everything.
but if MLB wasn't such a big money maker, it wouldn't exist at all, or it would be one of those niche sports that most people care about only during the olympics when someone from their country is contending for a medal.
28 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesThere are only so many big market cities to move to that already don't have one or two teams already. What MLB would have to do is simply write off small market teams altogether. Currently, the bottom 15 teams are perpetual slackers in regards to having winning seasons except maybe 4 or 5. This would mean eliminating about 10 teams or so completly. Then again, these teams bring in some revenue, so why not have them around leaching off the fans that support them? In fact, in Cincinnati Cubs fans come in by the droves to watch their team because the ticket are much easier to come by. The same can be said in football as droves of Steeler fans buy up all the tickets when the Bengals host the Steelers.
[b]As for the fans of small market teams, I say stop going to games and stop watching. Let empty stadiums be our voice because it is the only power the fans have
And then those teams would be forced to move to better markets (as was the case when Montreal moved to Washington). I'm surprised this hasn't been happening more than it has.
Or else a re about only during the olympics when someone from their country is contending for a medal.[/b]
28 Oct 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesMLB should be concerned not only with the short term money, which most far sighted greedy indiviuals only think about, but they should also be concenred with the long term health of the sport. I can tell you that future generations of fans in small market areas are a risk for not being introduced to the sport as youngsters, which is key to following the sport in their later years. As it stands now, only people in New York, California, and a few other states with "big markets" will be passing Amercias favority pass time to their offspring in large numbers.
[but if MLB wasn't such a big money maker, it wouldn't exist at all, or it would be one of those niche sports that most people care about only during the olympics when someone from their country is contending for a medal.[/b]
28 Oct 09
Originally posted by whodeyIf you want a sport to be viable in the future you would want it to be the number one sport in big markets. Baseball clearly is king in New York and Boston. It is certainly doing well in Philadelphia, LA and Chicago. New York just built two new stadiums. Its teams have its own network. Boston and the Cubs have classic stadiums. The best markets do not take the sport for granted; they continue to invest in the future and their investments are working. Baseball is doing great because its resources are in the right place -- the biggest markets. Greed is what certain small market teams do -- take revenue sharing money and put it in their pockets.
MLB should be concerned not only with the short term money, which most far sighted greedy indiviuals only think about, but they should also be concenred with the long term health of the sport. I can tell you that future generations of fans in small market areas are a risk for not being introduced to the sport as youngsters, which is key to following the spor ...[text shortened]... "big markets" will be passing Amercias favority pass time to their offspring in large numbers.