Whats the deal with some baseball teams? [Archive]

Stickman

07-31-2006, 06:01 PM

Honestly, do some teams even try and win a World Series? The only teams I ever hear anythign about are: The Blue Jays (Canadian team), Mariners (Closest team to Vancouver), Yankees and Red Sox for obvious reasons, and the Atlanta Braves and Cubs because they're on TV a lot. As for the other teams it's like, what other teams? I seriously wonder if teams are happy consistantly missing the playoffs.

loopydate

07-31-2006, 06:15 PM

The Detroit Tigers are actually getting a lot of airtime this year. Actually, they got a lot three years ago, when they were one loss away from tying the all-time MLB record for futility. But this year, now that they're the best team in baseball, ESPN seems to have noticed "Oh, hey! They play baseball in places other than Yankee Stadium and Fenway!"

A big part of it is money, though. The reason certain teams always win is because their ownership is willing to pay a lot of money to get the best players. It's why the Yankees are always near the front of the pack. They have no minor league system to speak of, but it doesn't matter since Steinbrenner will just buy anybody he wants.

MLB has a salary cap that's supposed to even the playing field, but the big-market teams (like the Yankees and the Sox) can afford to sign anybody they want since they have more than enough money to cover the penalties they incur by going over the cap.

It's also why teams in smaller cities (Kansas City, Milwaukee, etc.) don't do so well. There just isn't the money to support expensive free-agent spending.

Detroit's owner (who also founded the Little Caesar's pizza chain, iirc) finally opened up his wallet over the last two years or so to bring in some talent: Rodriguez, Magglio, Kenny Rogers, Guillen, Dmitri Young, and now Sean Casey. And now all of a sudden, they're among the best teams in baseball.

So, long story short, if you want a small-market team to do well; become a billionaire, buy the team, then start blowing tons of money on free agents.

DaveWadding

07-31-2006, 06:17 PM

I'm glad you think that the teams that you know about don't suck. Especially since one of them are the Cubs.

The Miz

07-31-2006, 06:20 PM

Yeah because Oakland and Minnesota have been terrible with 1/6 of New York's payroll. If you want a successful team, make good trades and draft good players. Money is not required

FakeLaser

07-31-2006, 06:27 PM

Also, you can't say market sharing isn't working. This year has been one of the most competitive in a long time.

Just take a look at the past 6 World Series:
2005: Chicago White Sox def. Houston Astros
2004: Boston Red Sox def. St. Louis Cardinals
2003: Florida Marlins def. New York Yankees
2002: Anaheim Angels def. San Francisco Giants
2001: Arizona Diamondbacks def. New York Yankees
2000: New York Yankees def. New York Mets

There has been a different world champion the past 6 years and a bunch of different teams have played in the Series, including smaller market teams like the Florida Marlins and Arizona Diamondbacks.

loopydate

07-31-2006, 06:40 PM

But look at who was on that D'Backs team. I don't think Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling came up through their minor league system. They won because they spent money.

I'll grant you the Marlins, though. The '97 team was an example of spending a ton to bring in the best players (and the team subsequently disbanded that winter because they couldn't afford them). In '03 they learned their lesson and brought in good young players (Willis, Pierre, etc) and some grounding veterans (Pudge and Conine) instead of just signing the top names available. But even then, they haven't had the long-term success that the big-money teams have.

And Miz, how many World Series have the A's or the Mariners won in the last 15 years? Come to think of it, how many World Series have they even made in that span? Yeah, the teams have done quite well in the regular season, but the teams that win World Series are the ones that spend the money.

FakeLaser

07-31-2006, 06:53 PM

What about the Angles or the White Sox?

The Miz

07-31-2006, 07:03 PM

That's fucking ridiculous. The regular season is a much better indicator of good play because the sample size is so much greater. So what if the A's lost 3 out of 5 games? They often won 100 out of 162 games. A bad series in the playoffs doesn't diminsh that.

In 2003 the A's were much better than the Marlins. The Marlins luckily snuck into the playoffs and had a nice little hot streak to win the championship. Good for them. It's just three series'. Anything can happen, just like the Devil Rays sweep the Yankees sometimes and the Royals sweep the White Sox sometimes. That's baseball, the best team doesn't always win and the best team very occasionally wins the World Series.

Florida has never been the best team in MLB, in the NL, or even in their own division.

Jesus Shuttlesworth

07-31-2006, 07:36 PM

2004: Boston Red Sox def. St. Louis Cardinals
Woooooo

Seriously though it must suck to be a fan of like the Pirates or the Royals or something. Like no chance of ever winning, must get annoying.

Team Sheep

07-31-2006, 08:16 PM

Kind of like Chelsea in soccer. An average sort of team in England for years, then all of a sudden a Russian billionaire buys the club and they win back to back national championships.

Skippord

07-31-2006, 09:01 PM

Rockies havent totally sucked this year

loopydate

07-31-2006, 09:54 PM

loopydate

07-31-2006, 09:55 PM

Woooooo

Seriously though it must suck to be a fan of like the Pirates or the Royals or something. Like no chance of ever winning, must get annoying.

As a Tigers fan, I was beginning to think I was going to be doomed to never see my team contend (other than a couple of years during my childhood when we had Fielder, Whitaker, Tettleton, Trammell, Phillips, Fryman, etc.)

With the right ownership, anything can happen.

The Miz

07-31-2006, 10:02 PM

That may all be true, but in ten years, nobody's going to remember how good of a regular season the A's had. All they'll remember is the Marlins winning the Series.

Your point?

loopydate

08-01-2006, 01:18 PM

My point is that this thread was about:

Honestly, do some teams even try and win a World Series? The only teams I ever hear anythign about are: The Blue Jays (Canadian team), Mariners (Closest team to Vancouver), Yankees and Red Sox for obvious reasons, and the Atlanta Braves and Cubs because they're on TV a lot. As for the other teams it's like, what other teams? I seriously wonder if teams are happy consistantly missing the playoffs.

And I answered why those same teams are always in the hunt for the Series and why other teams aren't. I also talked about what it takes for teams that aren't in the hunt to get themselves into the hunt.

I thought it was pretty straightforward, myself.

The Miz

08-01-2006, 02:01 PM

No, you said low budget teams can't win a world series which is completely untrue. Any team that makes the playoffs can win a world series, and plenty of low budget teams make the playoffs. Once you get there it's luck, the worst of the 8 playoff teams can win the World Series. it's happened before and it'll happen again.

The A's have averaged 97 wins from 2001-2005. The Yankees, 98. The reason a lot of small market teams don't compete is because their GMs are idiots. The KC Royals had one of the worst seasons in MLB history in 2005, and what did they do? Signed the most expensive free agents they could afford; Mientkiewicz, Grudzielanek, Dessens, Mays. These guys cost millions and obviously weren't going to improve the team by more than 5 wins or so. Meanwhile, Billy Beane signs Frank Thomas, Scott Hatteberg and David Justice for next to nothing and acquires Chad Bradford, Ray Durham, and Keith Foulke for even less. Terry Ryan does the same with Shannon Stewart, Joe Nathan and Johan Santana. A shrewd GM will take you a lot farther than alot of money.

Whether people remember this in 10 years or not is irrelevant.

Jesus Shuttlesworth

08-01-2006, 02:30 PM

Teams who have bad GM's also probably have bad people through out the front office, which results in bad decisions not only in regards to the baseball side of things but the business side as well. That really hurts any type of potential a franchise could have. o

The Red Sox co-owners, although one looks like Child Molester and one seems like an asshole, have totally changed the whole landscape of the organization. The old owners constantly complained about how Fenway was pit and how they couldn't make enough money off it. Instead of sitting around crying the new owners have made some serious changes inside the park and outside of the park which have improved Fenway big time, and they also bring in a way more money now. They've also built up the farm system which gives them all types of options, the old ownership didn't seem to succesful in regards to developing players. If teams can only win championships by buying them how come the Yankees haven't won since 2000? They have the highest payroll by far (about 70 or 80 mil more than 2nd place) and they don't seem any better off than a team like the A's or Twins.

ct2k

08-01-2006, 02:46 PM

I don't believe any team is doomed, including KC and the Pirates, they're not 'small markets', Pittsburgh won the superbowl last year ffs. If KC get someone knowledgeable and passionate in charge, build a decent squad and eventually win a world series, every schmo in the mid-west starts supporting them and they're suddenly big business, on ESPN, more money, more fan revenue, they sign big stars etc.

Someone mentioned Chelsea, completely average for their entire existence and then WHAM, best in the country with more fans than they've had in their entire first century as a club, every little kid in England wants a chelsea shirt now!

And really, the Cubs haven't been on tv that much, its only because its Chicago, second city, and its the Cubs, the perennial Playoff losers, they were on tv like every sunday a few years back, especially when Sammy Sosa was hitting 60 big flies a year

Stickman

08-01-2006, 03:53 PM

And really, the Cubs haven't been on tv that much, its only because its Chicago, second city, and its the Cubs, the perennial Playoff losers, they were on tv like every sunday a few years back, especially when Sammy Sosa was hitting 60 big flies a year

They are on WGN all the time. Don't they own that station or soemthing?

ct2k

08-01-2006, 03:54 PM

Not sure tbh, we only get Sunday and wednesday nights here and once in a while thursday:D mostly ESPN too, it musta been the 2004 season i think we got about 10 Cubs/Cards games:n:

And tbh i've never enjoyed the Cubs

Jesus Shuttlesworth

08-01-2006, 03:55 PM

What about the Angles or the White Sox?I dunno about then but now the Angels have the 3rd highest payroll don't they? I am almost positive they are like 18 mil behind the Red Sox this season.

Jesus Shuttlesworth

08-01-2006, 03:56 PM

it musta been the 2004 season i think we got about 10 Cubs/Cards games:n:
Prob that East Coast bias

The Miz

08-01-2006, 03:58 PM

Yeah ownership is a big part of it too. The A's owners when they went to the playoffs all those years sucked, they never let Beane stretch the payroll at all to re-sign anybody. Obviously Beane found good replacements but how sick would the A's be if they still had Tejada or Giambi or RHernandez.

ct2k

08-01-2006, 04:01 PM

Tejada, Giambi, Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, Jermaine Dye...Hell even Eric Byrnes, they've had a lot of decent players go through their ranks in the recent past.....Matt Stairs too, Miz's hot tip for this year:y:

Jesus Shuttlesworth

08-01-2006, 04:01 PM

Even just one of them, pretty ridiculous how they couldn't resign any of them, that's just being cheap.

The Miz

08-01-2006, 04:03 PM

No, they re-signed Eric Chavez and Barry Zito to huge deals. And Giambi was basically impossible for them with the kind of revenue they get even if the owners had been flexible with payroll.

ct2k

08-01-2006, 04:05 PM

To be fair Mark Mulder went down the shitter and Tim Hudson hasn't exactly been brilliant since he left but yknow, Hudson especially had a good thing going at the A's.

The Miz

08-01-2006, 04:08 PM

Zito was clearly the right choice to keep. Hudson was always injured and Mulder mysteriously lost 5 MPH off his fastball in the second half of 2004 (still hasn't regained it). Zito is the youngest and is the most durable starter in MLB, never missed a start in his 6 year career. Not to mention they got Dan Haren, Kiko Calero and Daric Barton from STL and Juan Cruz from ATL (Cruz sucks but they got Brad Halsey for him later who doesnt suck)

Jesus Shuttlesworth

08-01-2006, 04:12 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot about Chavez. I remembered Zito got re-signed but I was thinking he was the only one.

ct2k

08-01-2006, 04:14 PM

Mulder was shit hot in the first half of 2004 remember, when he got like 14 wins before the AS break etc, then he only won a handful in the second half and his ERA ballooned, dodgy. Its a shame for them that Hudson got injured all the time cos he could be pretty lights out when he wanted to be. Agreed on Zito, you don't win a Cy Young without having some serious stuff

The Miz

08-01-2006, 04:17 PM

Yeah that Cy Young was BS though :o Pedro was so much better than year but the sportswriters had a boner for Zito's 23 wins just like they did Colon's 21 wins last year. Only difference being Zito doesn't suck, nor does he look like Shrek.

Mulder was a shoe-in for the Cy Young at the 2004 ASB, didn't even get a single vote by season's end

ct2k

08-01-2006, 04:19 PM

I dunno didn't Zito go 23-5, 2.35 ERA, 200K's that year? Can't remember what Pedro was like, but obviously he was around the cy young vote pretty much every year since about 96

Jesus Shuttlesworth

08-01-2006, 04:22 PM

Pedro was so sick every year though, I dunno how he didn't win more Cy Youngs.

Year ERA
1998 2.89
1999 2.07
2000 1.74 :eek:
2001 2.39 (only had 110 innings tho)
2002 2.26
2003 2.22

Then in 2004 he had his worst season of his career (ERA wise - 3.90) and went on to win the World Series, funny how shit like that happens.

The Miz

08-01-2006, 04:22 PM

Zito 02: 2.75 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 229 IP, 182 K
Pedro 02: 2.26 ERA, 0.92 WHIP, 199 IP, 239 K

So yeah Zito is good but Pedro is like the best pitcher ever

ct2k

08-01-2006, 04:23 PM

Yeah, in 1999 i remember he was unbelievable but missed half a dozen starts, i'm sure he still won about 24 games that year but he had 15 wins at the ASB:eek:

The Miz

08-01-2006, 04:24 PM

Pedro is kinda shit now though, last start I saw his fastball was like 89. Still good obviously but nowhere close to early 2000's Pedro. Sucks he's a little guy. Maybe he could get Clemens to hook him up with some HGH.

ct2k

08-01-2006, 04:25 PM

Pedro was the one Red Sock i could never bring myself to hate really, purely because he is/was so damn good, fun to watch

Jesus Shuttlesworth

08-01-2006, 07:35 PM

Yeah he was the man. I thought the Red Sox made the start move by not re-signing but now I don't know. They could definetly use him right now and I think they could afford to have him suck/be injuried during the 4th year of his contract.

He was always involded in the best shit, plus he is the best pitcher I've ever seen in a Red Sox uniform. I think he is better than Clemens.

Where was the East Coast bias in '02? haha

The Miz

08-01-2006, 08:40 PM

The only thing sportswriters get a bigger boner from than Yankees/RedSox is pitchers with high win totals. See: Bartolo Colon. Top 5 in the AL in absolutely nothing last year.

And yes Pedro is better than Clemens. Both would probably get destroyed in the AL today though.

FakeLaser

08-02-2006, 01:37 AM

I dunno about then but now the Angels have the 3rd highest payroll don't they? I am almost positive they are like 18 mil behind the Red Sox this season.
I'm talking about when they won the World Series.

Stickman

08-02-2006, 01:17 PM

WHy don't they get a real salary cap?

FakeLaser

08-02-2006, 01:19 PM

Market sharing seems to be working just fine.

It's August and 17 teams are still in the race.

Jesus Shuttlesworth

08-04-2006, 02:15 AM

WHy don't they get a real salary cap?
Because the Players union runs Major League baseball

The sharing system is just some bullshit put out by Major League Baseball to make it look like all 32 franchises are fairly matched up. (Money wise anyway) The sharing system really should not be given any credit to the amount of teams still in the running this season. Credit needs to go to those in the front office, people are getting a lot smarter in-regards to tieing sport into business. There is tons of colleges offering sports management/sports adminsitration courses (I go to a college with like 500 freshman and 90 of them are in my major of Sports Management) and I really don't think that was the case even 10 years ago.