04 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettLet me put this in communist terms. The Tigers spend $115 million this year on their team and are #5 in terms of total dallars they spend on their team. The Twins, however, spend only $65 million and are #24 in the majors in terms of money spent on their team. Having said that, it appears that the Tigers are the more "capatilistic" team compared to the Twins. So why not root for the Twins? Of course, the way baseball ils set up economically, the Twins have no chance and never will have a chance at winning a world championship, but you can still do the right thing and root for the economic underdog.
[b]Twins? Bah! They are an embarrassment to all of baseball. Still playing on turf, are they? How passé.
What I envision Rwingett is a system where ALL teams spend the same amount every year on their team. In this way, perhaps we can level the playing field so that teams like the Tigers are not simply buying wins.
Speaking of buying wins, when do the Yankees who spend over $200 million a year come into town? Enjoy the success while you can.
04 Oct 09
It really makes more sense to look at standings and not to look at payroll. If you live in a city that can't/ won't support a team, then either (1) realize that you are lucky to have a team (2) realize that you might not win as much. (3) form a AAAA league and compete against other similar equal teams.
Baseball has a draft in which certain incompetent teams always get the best players, they allow trades (where you get young talent for guys you cannot afford (refuse to pay); they give compensation for lost free agents, they have a luxury tax which transfers money to the have nots, they equally share internet money, they formed the central division where you do not have to compete with the imaginary costal biases as well as New York and Los Angeles. How much more do you want?
To me if this is not enough for your little cow town, please just contract. The sport would be better off (in fact who would even notice)and the world would prefer to not hear your whinning.
04 Oct 09
Originally posted by quackquackI posted something in August in the Reds thread. In it I said the following:
It really makes more sense to look at standings and not to look at payroll. If you live in a city that can't/ won't support a team, then either (1) realize that you are lucky to have a team (2) realize that you might not win as much. (3) form a AAAA league and compete against other similar equal teams.
Baseball has a draft in which certain incompeten ...[text shortened]... etter off (in fact who would even notice)and the world would prefer to not hear your whinning.
Of the top 15 pay roll teams, 11 of them are above .500
Of the bottom 15 pay roll teams, 11 of them are below .500
Of the top 15 pay roll teams there are 4 teams below .500
Of the bottom 15 pay roll teams only 4 are above .500
As you can see, the haves and have nots are mirror images of each other with the haves more often than not beating up on the have nots. Face it, baseball is broken. Your right in that the have nots may as well not even take the field. They are simply wasting our time as well as their own.
04 Oct 09
Originally posted by whodeyIt is time for you to simply stop crying. First of all, you only belive in equality when it benefits your team. You never say think it is unfair when your #1 recruit Pryor beats Youngstown State and zero players on their roster could make Ohio State's roster.
I posted something in August in the Reds thread. In it I said the following:
Of the top 15 pay roll teams, 11 of them are above .500
Of the bottom 15 pay roll teams, 11 of them are below .500
Of the top 15 pay roll teams there are 4 teams below .500
Of the bottom 15 pay roll teams only 4 are above .500
As you can see, the haves and have nots are m ...[text shortened]... ots may as well not even take the field. They are simply wasting our time as well as their own.
Secondl, the fact is that your owner refuses to spend his hundreds of millions dollars on a team. It is not a birth right to have a loaded roster. If you don't like that other teams are better either get better or leave to sport. Over seven million tickets were sold to New York baseball home games in 2008. New York supports its teams. Other cities don't. I wouldn't change the sport so you whinning fans (who don't really care to go the ball park) have a better chance to win. The already is a luxury tax, there already is a draft where bad teams get better picks, there already is compensation for losing free agents and the right to trade players before they reach free agency. There is a division (the Central) where no New York or LA teams play. The support already bends over backwards for the have nots.
Finally, for whatever it worth I am sure baseball is delighted that the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels and Dodgers are in the playoffs and could not care that your might watch your mighty Bengals or someone else might rather watch the Steelers.
05 Oct 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI was at the game today. We managed to win one. Of course the stupid Royals couldn't win a single game from their series with the Twins. So there'll be a deciding game on Tuesday. Porcello (14-9) vs. Baker (15-9).
Looks like a Tiger Collapse Redux. Will they lose again today and watch the Twins win the division?
The truth is that the Tigers have been very inconsistent all year. Their offense is pretty lame. But postseason baseball is all about pitching and defense. We've been fairly decent in those categories, so I wouldn't write us off just yet. Plus it has happened more than once that the playoff team with the worst record has gone on to win the Series.
05 Oct 09
Originally posted by whodeyA "communist" team would not be the one with the lowest payroll, but one where the players collectively owned the team. The Players League of 1890 was set up to do essentially that, but was driven out of business after only one season.
Let me put this in communist terms. The Tigers spend $115 million this year on their team and are #5 in terms of total dallars they spend on their team. The Twins, however, spend only $65 million and are #24 in the majors in terms of money spent on their team. Having said that, it appears that the Tigers are the more "capatilistic" team compared to the Twi ...[text shortened]... e Yankees who spend over $200 million a year come into town? Enjoy the success while you can.
Because of the payroll difference it is very difficult for small market teams to win the Series, but not impossible. The Twins have made it to the playoffs four times since 2000, and of course they did win the Series in '87 and '91. They're a well run franchise. But I agree with you (for once) in that I would like to see more payroll parity.
05 Oct 09
Originally posted by quackquackIt is not crying, rather, it is simply a fact. As you said, my Buckeyes are contenders every year as where other teams, like Indiana, are not. As a result, what you have is a program that is followed closely across the country with very good fan support for OSU as where Indiana, not so much. I will say, however, that I often wish college football would create more parity by playing teams comporable to themselves. Just look at teams like Florida who coast all year, except for teams like LSU, and then walk into the NC. As a fan, I think parity equal insterest and the same can be said for baseball.
It is time for you to simply stop crying. First of all, you only belive in equality when it benefits your team. You never say think it is unfair when your #1 recruit Pryor beats Youngstown State and zero players on their roster could make Ohio State's roster.
Secondl, the fact is that your owner refuses to spend his hundreds of millions dollars on ...[text shortened]... that your might watch your mighty Bengals or someone else might rather watch the Steelers.
From what I can gather, the "small market teams" are nothing more that farm teams for the big dogs. This is a fact, not a mere case of me whinning. In fact, I think fan interest will reflect this fact increasingly until the only interest will be in the big market teams. As for you thinking the media prefers the big market teams over the small market teams, you are absolutely right. In fact, the system works great for all involved. The media attains the higher post season reatings, the players earn top dollar. After all, if your good enough, you can be a Yankee!! And the owners don't have to fight with the players unions any more because the players have all the freedom in the world in terms of payroll. Of course, it works great for everyone but the pitiful fan of the small market teams.
05 Oct 09
Originally posted by rwingettThey did win in 87 and 91, but that was ancient history. I noticed a dramatic change about the mid 90's. I make the bold prediction that no small market team will win the series EVER again unless this issue is addressed. In the meantime, enjjoy watching your Tigers duke it out with the Yankees every other year in the post season. As for myself, I won't be watching. 😴
[Because of the payroll difference it is very difficult for small market teams to win the Series, but not impossible. The Twins have made it to the playoffs four times since 2000, and of course they did win the Series in '87 and '91. They're a well run franchise. But I agree with you (for once) in that I would like to see more payroll parity.[/b]
05 Oct 09
Originally posted by whodeyActually, you are not just stating facts, you are whinning and it is comletely hypocritical. Your Buckeyes never offer some of their top players to Indiana and Purdue. They could not care about fan interest, mutual TV contracts, shared bowl revenues or improved competition. You just are glad your team wins.
It is not crying, rather, it is simply a fact. As you said, my Buckeyes are contenders every year as where other teams, like Indiana, are not. As a result, what you have is a program that is followed closely across the country with very good fan support for OSU as where Indiana, not so much. I will say, however, that I often wish college football would cre ...[text shortened]... yroll. Of course, it works great for everyone but the pitiful fan of the small market teams.
The real fact is that top teams whether it is Ohio State/ Florida/ USC or Yankees/ Red Sox create the interest and value for their sports. They fill up stadium, they draw huge TV ratings, they sell huge amounts of merchandise . They have fans that care. In Pittsburgh in the 70s people rather watch a Steelers exhibition game than a Pirates playoff game. Maybe it is fitting that the Steelers win superbowls and the Pirates have 17 consecutive losing seasons. If you are really that unhappy about imbalance maybe you should advocate contracting non-competitive teams. Perhaps then we could agree.
05 Oct 09
Originally posted by whodeyYour prediction will almost certainly be wrong. Small market teams have won the WS since the mid 90's (Florida twice) and several others have reached the WS invariably defeating high payroll teams on the way (Rays over Sux last year). You vastly overrate the effect of payroll on winning as has been shown time and time again.
They did win in 87 and 91, but that was ancient history. I noticed a dramatic change about the mid 90's. I make the bold prediction that no small market team will win the series EVER again unless this issue is addressed. In the meantime, enjjoy watching your Tigers duke it out with the Yankees every other year in the post season. As for myself, I won't be watching. 😴