PDA

View Full Version : Holy S#@%!


habibharu
02-14-2004, 04:14 PM
espnews reports that AROD just got traded to the yankees!

gogosoxgogo
02-14-2004, 04:19 PM
Wow. What's the trade? I presume Soriano/Contreras/prospect?

Damn Comcast for not giving me ESPNEWS.

beckett21
02-14-2004, 04:20 PM
Looks like they are still working out the details...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1735039

WinningUgly!
02-14-2004, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by habibharu
espnews reports that AROD just got traded to the yankees!

Somewhere Peter Gammons is getting fitted for a straitjacket. :)

Rocklive99
02-14-2004, 04:21 PM
I was in the other room and heard it since the TV was blasted. Damn Yankees. They said ARod would play 3rd

ChiWhiteSox1337
02-14-2004, 04:22 PM
Wow. Is there any hope for any team in the AL now? Only the biggest choke in history could stop them from winning it all

habibharu
02-14-2004, 04:23 PM
wow how great is must feel to be a yankee fan! they were only gonna win 97 games this year so they felt that they had to get AROD

Lip Man 1
02-14-2004, 04:24 PM
The web site of Newsday is reporting the deal is done. The Yanks will have a payroll of around 200 million, larger then the GNP of some small nations.

They now have an All Star at practically every position.

BUT THERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS!

This permanently puts to bed any delusional thinking on the part of some Sox fans that this year's club can 'luck' past BOTH the Red Sox and Yankees to get to the World Series.

That insanity has been buried.

Lip

beckett21
02-14-2004, 04:25 PM
Doesn't seem like it's official yet...just close. :o:

beckett21
02-14-2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The web site of Newsday is reporting the deal is done. The Yanks will have a payroll of around 200 million, larger then the GNP of some small nations.

They now have an All Star at practically every position.

BUT THERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS!

This permanently puts to bed any delusional thinking on the part of some Sox fans that this year's club can 'luck' past BOTH the Red Sox and Yankees to get to the World Series.

That insanity has been buried.

Lip

Didn't see your post...they said the deal is in fact done?

And what are you talking about, ANYTHING can happen in the playoffs, Lip! :D:

Yeah right!

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The web site of Newsday is reporting the deal is done. The Yanks will have a payroll of around 200 million, larger then the GNP of some small nations.

They now have an All Star at practically every position.

BUT THERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS!

This permanently puts to bed any delusional thinking on the part of some Sox fans that this year's club can 'luck' past BOTH the Red Sox and Yankees to get to the World Series.

That insanity has been buried.

Lip Geez Lip, you find the negative in everything, huh? These guys aren't even in our division, so let's not freak out that the Sox don't have a 200 million dollar payroll until we win the Central.

beckett21
02-14-2004, 04:32 PM
I suppose in all fairness, they ARE the Yankees...they broke the mold there.

:boston

"Please excuse me while I go throw myself in front of a bus on Yawkey Way."

WinningUgly!
02-14-2004, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Geez Lip, you find the negative in everything, huh?

Really? I haven't noticed.

jamteh
02-14-2004, 04:38 PM
Why oh why can't baseball wake up and realize it needs a salary cap? This is getting ridiculous.

idseer
02-14-2004, 04:38 PM
is it a good time to say .... HA ha ... to those that seriously thought the yankees might have to trade for someone like jose valentin?

they kept saying ... "there's no one else they can get!' hey there's no one better available!'.

as if the yankees can't make stuff happen. :D:

beckett21
02-14-2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by idseer
is it a good time to say .... HA ha ... to those that seriously thought the yankees might have to trade for someone like jose valentin?

they kept saying ... "there's no one else they can get!' hey there's no one better available!'.

as if the yankees can't make stuff happen. :D:

People underestimate the Boss...big mistake.

munchman33
02-14-2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
They now have an All Star at practically every position.

Not at second base. And Their Centerfield/DH platoon of the aging Bernie Williams and Kenny Lofton leaves something to be desired. And their kidding themselves if they think Giambi can play first everyday and remain remotely healthy. And there's no way Shefield will have as good a season as he did last year. This team, while now better, isn't nearly invincible. This is now a very old team. Soriana and Nick Johnson are both gone. The Yankees are a bunch of old players with long, expensive contracts. Perhaps this is the beginning of the end for their dynasty.

RKMeibalane
02-14-2004, 04:44 PM
A-Rod will have to change his number.

cornball
02-14-2004, 04:46 PM
NBC said at the halftime of the Chicago Rush game ...the deal is done.

Soriano and a minor leaguer for ARod.

RKMeibalane
02-14-2004, 04:48 PM
Isn't it great how the Yankees always find a way to make something happen, but the Sox administration just sits around and does nothing? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm incredibly excited about the possibility of having Juan Uribe and Willie Harris in the lineup this season. I can't wait!

MRKARNO
02-14-2004, 04:50 PM
Now that the Yankees have a hole at 2B, there is no reason to think that they wont deal again with Montreal to get Vidro

WinningUgly!
02-14-2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
BUT THERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS!

This permanently puts to bed any delusional thinking on the part of some Sox fans that this year's club can 'luck' past BOTH the Red Sox and Yankees to get to the World Series.

That insanity has been buried.

Lip

Then is it safe to assume that you are now in favor of the White Sox totally cleaning house? Might as well dump Thomas, Ordonez, Loaiza, Lee, Valentin, Marte, Buehrle, Konerko & anyone else we can, right? Now that Steinbrenner, A-Rod & you have taken the "luck card" away from us Sox fans, what's the point in having any high priced vets on this team at all? Borchard, Reed & Borchard in the OF... Gload, Harris, Uribe & Crede in the IF... Olivo behind the plate... Garland, Rauch, Cotts, Honel & Diaz as our rotation.

RKMeibalane
02-14-2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Now that the Yankees have a hole at 2B, there is no reason to think that they wont deal again with Montreal to get Vidro

Probably. Are there any other quality second baseman availible besides Vidro?

idseer
02-14-2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
Probably. Are there any other quality second baseman availible besides Vidro?

i keep hearing good things about willie harris!

doctor30th
02-14-2004, 05:07 PM
From the newsday article:

The Yankees and Rangers have an agreement in principle on a monster trade that will send superstar shortstop Alex Rodriguez to New York in exchange for Alfonso Soriano

a couple very minor technical details are still to be worked out

Might I remind everyone that this is the same thing they said about the Manny Ramirez - A-Rod trade. Thought I think this one is much more likely to end up happening.

chisoxmike
02-14-2004, 05:10 PM
MLB.com may want to rethink their preview of the AL East.

jabrch
02-14-2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
Not at second base. And Their Centerfield/DH platoon of the aging Bernie Williams and Kenny Lofton leaves something to be desired.


Yeah, I'd desire to have EITHER ONE OF THEM as our CF.

For that matter, I think I would take the Yankee's starter at every single position (except 2B - since they haven't bought one yet) over our starters.

Sheff over Maggs - Close, it could go either way
Lofton/Bernie over Crash - 7 days a week and twice on Sunday
Matsui over Lee - could go either way, but I may take Matsui
ARod over Crede - Duh
Jeter over Manos - see above
Giambi over PK - see above
Posada over Olivo - see above
DH - the only spot we have them

Amazing. Where is Trump or some other owner when we need him?

ChiWhiteSox1337
02-14-2004, 05:23 PM
The only problem with the red sox trade was the $$$. I'm pretty sure that won't be a problem for the yankees.

chisoxmike
02-14-2004, 05:26 PM
Matsui over Lee - could go either way, but I may take Matsui

No way! I'd take Lee any day.

Daver
02-14-2004, 05:28 PM
This trade would have to wait on approval of the commisioner,which may not come until Monday.

Why would they have the better defensive SS play third though?

serena
02-14-2004, 05:35 PM
It seems to be Yankee gospel that Jeter was the best defensive shortstop, is the best defensive shortstop, and always will be the best defensive shortstop, despite any evidence to the contrary.
:?:

idseer
02-14-2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Daver
This trade would have to wait on approval of the commisioner,which may not come until Monday.

Why would they have the better defensive SS play third though?

probably because jeter would have a fit if it were any other way.

MarkEdward
02-14-2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by jamteh
Why oh why can't baseball wake up and realize it needs a salary cap? This is getting ridiculous.

Yup. Teams like the 2003 Marlins and their 40 million dollar payroll just can't compete!

MRKARNO
02-14-2004, 05:51 PM
Jeter should move to third. It would help out their pitchers a ton (especially Kevin Brown). Jeter has terrible range. Valentin is a far superior defensive SS, let alone A-rod.

hillbilly
02-14-2004, 05:57 PM
watch them make a trade for say jeff kent somehow now.

MRKARNO
02-14-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by hillbilly
watch them make a trade for say jeff kent somehow now.

No, the stros wouldnt trade kent. That's why I proposed Vidro who is on a worse team and is tradable

RichFitztightly
02-14-2004, 06:07 PM
They should have a raffle for a fan to win a chance to play second base any given game. It really doens't matter who's there.

jabrch
02-14-2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by chisoxmike
No way! I'd take Lee any day.

Matsui will hit for higher average and be a GG calibre OF who can play CF if needed. Lee is, after lots of hard work, at best an average LF. The only thing Lee has over Matsui is power.

beckett21
02-14-2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
No, the stros wouldnt trade kent. That's why I proposed Vidro who is on a worse team and is tradable

I agree 100% with you here. No way the Yanks stand pat with that 2B situation. Vidro is the logical choice--I would bank on that.

dickallen15
02-14-2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The web site of Newsday is reporting the deal is done. The Yanks will have a payroll of around 200 million, larger then the GNP of some small nations.

They now have an All Star at practically every position.

BUT THERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS!

This permanently puts to bed any delusional thinking on the part of some Sox fans that this year's club can 'luck' past BOTH the Red Sox and Yankees to get to the World Series.

That insanity has been buried.

Lip

ARod playing 3B makes no sense, he his much better defensively than Jeter. He is also going from a bandbox to a right handed power hitter's graveyard. Soriano may put similar numbers, although ARod is far better defensively. I don't think this makes the Yankees all that much better, and adds $20 million to their payroll. Considering they just had to pay over $60 million in luxury tax, that figure will go up significantly, and even Steinbrenner must have a limit. I think the reason the Yankees are doing this is so the Red Sox won't have the chance to revisit it.

voodoochile
02-14-2004, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by idseer
probably because jeter would have a fit if it were any other way.

No way to know actually. By expressing his willingness to switch to 3rd, all ARod has done is show he wants to be a Yankee and wants out of Texas badly.

I imagine the team will find a way to make the most of the situation. Heck, one of them could play CF, right?

CWSGuy406
02-14-2004, 07:03 PM
Is there a chance that this could re-open the Nomar/Mags deal?

Yanks make a big splash, so perhaps the BoSox want to fire right back?

Yeah, yeah, I know what KW said at SoxFest, I'm just bringing this up for conversations sake.

Hell, only five days till pitchers and catchers report. Yay! :smile:

gogosoxgogo
02-14-2004, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by CWSGuy406
Is there a chance that this could re-open the Nomar/Mags deal?

No, because that deal would only have happened because the Red Sox would have had two shortstops. They wouldn't now trade off Nomar without someone to take his spot because they'd be left without a shortstop. They don't need a RF, either.

chisoxmike
02-14-2004, 07:13 PM
:payrod
"Take that Gammons!"

:boston
"This deal won't happen because it isn't good for baseball. (aka, it isn't good for me and my Red Sox)

munchman33
02-14-2004, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Yeah, I'd desire to have EITHER ONE OF THEM as our CF.

For that matter, I think I would take the Yankee's starter at every single position (except 2B - since they haven't bought one yet) over our starters.

Sheff over Maggs - Close, it could go either way
Lofton/Bernie over Crash - 7 days a week and twice on Sunday
Matsui over Lee - could go either way, but I may take Matsui
ARod over Crede - Duh
Jeter over Manos - see above
Giambi over PK - see above
Posada over Olivo - see above
DH - the only spot we have them

Amazing. Where is Trump or some other owner when we need him?

I disagree about maggs and lee, and I might even choose PK over Giambi because I'm worried Giambi might be done by next year, and he's got a lot of money coming for a very long time.

MRKARNO
02-14-2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
I disagree about maggs and lee, and I might even choose PK over Giambi because I'm worried Giambi might be done by next year, and he's got a lot of money coming for a very long time.

If you look beyond the BA, you will see that Giambi was one of the best hitters in the AL last year (OBP, etc). He is not close to being done and can easily rebound. Gimme Giambi any day over PK, especially Giambi at USCF, because it is a home-run-hitters' park

doctor30th
02-14-2004, 07:31 PM
One of the officials said the deal under discussion would have the Yankees paying Rodriguez an average of about $16 million annually, which translates to Texas assuming $67 million.

If thats true that is crazy. Thats like the rangers paying for the yankees to have A-rod for 3 of the years left on his contract.

link (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-yankees-rodriguez&prov=ap&type=lgns)

owensmouth
02-14-2004, 07:51 PM
Before we hand over the trophy to Steinbottom, consider this: the last few years the Yankees were supposed to be unbeatable because of their pitching. They weren't. Before that it was because they got that guy from the A's.

Go back a couple of years ago and see what their glorious new right fielder did for the Dodgers. His attitude was worse than Frank Thomas'.

What looks good on paper will blow up on them on the playing field.

Right now I think that the Angels are the team to beat. And neither the Yankees nor the Angels are in the Central Division.

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Matsui will hit for higher average and be a GG calibre OF who can play CF if needed. Lee is, after lots of hard work, at best an average LF. The only thing Lee has over Matsui is power. Lee is a better defender.

spanishwhite
02-14-2004, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by owensmouth
Before we hand over the trophy to Steinbottom, consider this: the last few years the Yankees were supposed to be unbeatable because of their pitching. They weren't. Before that it was because they got that guy from the A's.

Go back a couple of years ago and see what their glorious new right fielder did for the Dodgers. His attitude was worse than Frank Thomas'.

What looks good on paper will blow up on them on the playing field.

Right now I think that the Angels are the team to beat. And neither the Yankees nor the Angels are in the Central Division.


Aren't the Angels using the same strategy that the Yankees are.

Big time free agents?

Oakland's offense hasn't been the same without Giambi.

I assume you were talking about Sheffield, but he wasn't exactly surrounded by the same allstar team that the Yankees have.

Its all cute to say that the Yankees will blow up, but the reality is that they wont. The Angels will be just as good and so will Boston, all that talent isnt going to produce sub .500 records.

It looks to be those three teams in the playoffs with the central "contender."

flo-B-flo
02-14-2004, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
Not at second base. And Their Centerfield/DH platoon of the aging Bernie Williams and Kenny Lofton leaves something to be desired. And their kidding themselves if they think Giambi can play first everyday and remain remotely healthy. And there's no way Shefield will have as good a season as he did last year. This team, while now better, isn't nearly invincible. This is now a very old team. Soriana and Nick Johnson are both gone. The Yankees are a bunch of old players with long, expensive contracts. Perhaps this is the beginning of the end for their dynasty. While not invincible, this yanker team can win 2-3 more before they get TOO old.

santo=dorf
02-14-2004, 08:38 PM
The Yanks aren't done. Look who else they just picked up.
Yanks get Chicago Star (http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/yankees.html)

chisox06
02-14-2004, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by spanishwhite
Aren't the Angels using the same strategy that the Yankees are.

Big time free agents?

Oakland's offense hasn't been the same without Giambi.

I assume you were talking about Sheffield, but he wasn't exactly surrounded by the same allstar team that the Yankees have.

Its all cute to say that the Yankees will blow up, but the reality is that they wont. The Angels will be just as good and so will Boston, all that talent isnt going to produce sub .500 records.

It looks to be those three teams in the playoffs with the central "contender."

How do you have any idea what "reality" is before the season even starts. Im sure you predicted the Marlins to win it all last year too, I'd love to use your crystal ball.

Would this move help NY, without a doubt. Does it guarantee them anything, nope still gotta play the games. What makes me think about all this is dont the Rangers need desperately need pitching? Soriano is a good player to have but you need to look at where your hurting the most, and when trading the best player in the game, you better get your worth. Looks like all Texas is doing is dumping payrods salary.

lowesox
02-14-2004, 09:02 PM
I think somebody was joking about it earlier in this thread, but I think this trade means the Sox should rebuild. First fire Kenny Williams, then start getting what you can for Thomas, Maggs, Elo and Buerle. Build around guys like Crede, Olivo, Lee and Garland. See if guys like Koch, Konerko and Valentin can turn it around. If they can, trade them too.

The Sox didn't have any chance before this trade. Now, it's become a physical impossibility. Why not get what we can in trades and draft picks and see where we end up 2 years down the road?

The present is bleak. Lets see if we can make the future bright.

santo=dorf
02-14-2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
I think somebody was joking about it earlier in this thread, but I think this trade means the Sox should rebuild. First fire Kenny Williams, then start getting what you can for Thomas, Maggs, Elo and Buerle. Build around guys like Crede, Olivo, Lee and Garland. See if guys like Koch, Konerko and Valentin can turn it around. If they can, trade them too.

The Sox didn't have any chance before this trade. Now, it's become a physical impossibility. Why not get what we can in trades and draft picks and see where we end up 2 years down the road?

The present is bleak. Lets see if we can make the future bright.

Since when have the Sox been playing in the A.L East? The Sox should worry about getting to the playoffs before worrying about the Yankee$.

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
I think somebody was joking about it earlier in this thread, but I think this trade means the Sox should rebuild. First fire Kenny Williams, then start getting what you can for Thomas, Maggs, Elo and Buerle. Build around guys like Crede, Olivo, Lee and Garland. See if guys like Koch, Konerko and Valentin can turn it around. If they can, trade them too.

The Sox didn't have any chance before this trade. Now, it's become a physical impossibility. Why not get what we can in trades and draft picks and see where we end up 2 years down the road?

The present is bleak. Lets see if we can make the future bright. You give up too easily. Besides why would you trade Buehrle, is he 40? Anyway, the Sox only have to beat out the Twins and Royals, after that, then we can worry about the Yankees. Besides, what can the Sox possibly do in two years from rebuilding that the Yankees couldn't just by up then, and put us in the same situation.

lowesox
02-14-2004, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by santo=dorf
Since when have the Sox been playing in the A.L East? The Sox should worry about getting to the playoffs before worrying about the Yankee$.

What's the point of getting into the playoffs only to get hammered? To know that we won a loser division? By the beginning of next year Maggs, Thomas and Elo will probably all be gone anyways. Why not get what we can now.

With the way some other AL teams look right now I could care less if we make the playoffs.

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
What's the point of getting into the playoffs only to get hammered? To know that we won a loser division? By the beginning of next year Maggs, Thomas and Elo will probably all be gone anyways. Why not get what we can now.

With the way some other AL teams look right now I could care less if we make the playoffs. Winning the division still means something. Besides if you want the young guys to develop, let them get a taste of what it takes and what it means to win.

lowesox
02-14-2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
You give up too easily.

IMO the Royals have a far better team this year than we do. I really do hate to admit it, but its true. And then the twins. Then us. Just being realistic here.

I'm not sure why any of you would want to make the playoffs only to lose. To me, its all or nothing. This year its going to be nothing.

Originally posted by SEALgep
Besides why would you trade Buehrle, is he 40?

From what I've read Buerle has very little interest in being part of the long term picture on the south side - so trade him now when you can get something good in return.

Originally posted by SEALgep
What can the Sox possibly do in two years from rebuilding that the Yankees couldn't just by up then, and put us in the same situation.

We could field a good team. Sorry to say it, the 2004 Sox are not looking like a good team.

lowesox
02-14-2004, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Winning the division still means something. Besides if you want the young guys to develop, let them get a taste of what it takes and what it means to win.

Look at this team critically. Do you really think we can win a division? We have major holes at Leadoff, 2B, CF, #4SP, #5SP. Every single one of our righthanded pitchers in the bullpen are major question marks, as is our closer situation, 1b, 3B, SS, C and our manager.

But, ok, lets say lightning strikes and the stars collide and we make the playoffs. WE'll have lost all of the potention value we would have received through rebuilding now. And why? To give young players a taste of what the playoffs feel like.

Sorry. It just doesn't make sense to me.

ChiSox7
02-14-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
Look at this team critically. Do you really think we can win a division? We have major holes at Leadoff, 2B, CF, #4SP, #5SP. Every single one of our righthanded pitchers in the bullpen are major question marks, as is our closer situation, 1b, 3B, SS, C and our manager.

But, ok, lets say lightning strikes and the stars collide and we make the playoffs. WE'll have lost all of the potention value we would have received through rebuilding now. And why? To give young players a taste of what the playoffs feel like.

Sorry. It just doesn't make sense to me.

The Royals still have holes at #2SP - #5SP. Their bullpen isn't that much better. They have decent offense, but I don't think they score as many runs as they did last year. THey batted .300 + with RISP. they wont do that again. They have a hole at 2b after relaford had a career year for him. Until they get some pitching, they'll be competitive, but I don't think they strike fear into anyone.

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
Look at this team critically. Do you really think we can win a division? We have major holes at Leadoff, 2B, CF, #4SP, #5SP. Every single one of our righthanded pitchers in the bullpen are major question marks, as is our closer situation, 1b, 3B, SS, C and our manager.

But, ok, lets say lightning strikes and the stars collide and we make the playoffs. WE'll have lost all of the potention value we would have received through rebuilding now. And why? To give young players a taste of what the playoffs feel like.

Sorry. It just doesn't make sense to me. It's not as depressing as you make it. I mean if you think we have holes, what do the Royals and Twins have? You're crazy if you think their teams have a clear advantage over us. And if we make the playoffs, how can you discount that just because the Yankees may beat us. If it's all or nothing, and the Yankees are going to win the whole thing, why even play. It just isn't logical to give up and say well were probably not going to win the world series, so let's build for 2010. That's just, I don't know what that is.

CWSGuy406
02-14-2004, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
IMO the Royals have a far better team this year than we do. I really do hate to admit it, but its true. And then the twins. Then us. Just being realistic here.

I'm not sure why any of you would want to make the playoffs only to lose. To me, its all or nothing. This year its going to be nothing.



From what I've read Buerle has very little interest in being part of the long term picture on the south side - so trade him now when you can get something good in return.



We could field a good team. Sorry to say it, the 2004 Sox are not looking like a good team.



And who is going to pitch/eat up innings for the Royals this year? Kevin Appier?

I'll bring up the Marlins of last year, though in no way am I trying to compare their team to our team. Did anyone think they would win it all? I doubt many people even thought they would yield a winning record, much less win it all.

People (I'm not singling you out, I'm giving a general statement) are sometimes very hypocritical. If Jerry Reinsdorf/Kenny Williams were to blow up this team and play for the future, we'd be all over them for doing so.

I find statements about Buerhle not wanting to be here very untrue. I doubt he would have signed an extension if he had that attitude.

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
IMO the Royals have a far better team this year than we do. I really do hate to admit it, but its true. And then the twins. Then us. Just being realistic here.

I'm not sure why any of you would want to make the playoffs only to lose. To me, its all or nothing. This year its going to be nothing.



From what I've read Buerle has very little interest in being part of the long term picture on the south side - so trade him now when you can get something good in return.



We could field a good team. Sorry to say it, the 2004 Sox are not looking like a good team. Lol, I'm not even sure where to begin. The Twins have big trouble, and the Royals have more pitching question marks than anyone. Buerhle just signed a three year deal (the most the Sox are willing to sign a pitcher.) 2004 Sox look as good as anyone in the division, and that's toned down. We should win the division.

beckett21
02-14-2004, 09:52 PM
I don't think the Yanks are totally invincible (and remember the deal isn't *official* yet unless I missed something, though it seems good as done); but they are going to be pretty tough. I still don't think we stacked up well to them or Boston anyway. Or Seattle, or Oakland, or Anaheim. For that matter Toronto. The AL is going to be very competetive this year as a whole.

Winning the division would be nice, and that is still a distinct possibility but by far not a foregone conclusion. IMO we still don't have strong enough pitching to carry us thru to the pennant. We will be out in the first round if we make it at all. We have done that already; how about trying to win a series or two? Would that be so bad? I don't buy the "anything can happen" scenarios either; why leave things to "chance" ?? Georgie-porgie sure doesn't. Take the bull by the horns; if you're gonna lose, go out guns ablazin'...at least you gave it your best shot. The Sox are not doing that IMHO.

duke of dorwood
02-14-2004, 09:55 PM
We are better Than Detroit, Cleveland and Texas.

santo=dorf
02-14-2004, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
What's the point of getting into the playoffs only to get hammered? To know that we won a loser division? By the beginning of next year Maggs, Thomas and Elo will probably all be gone anyways. Why not get what we can now.

With the way some other AL teams look right now I could care less if we make the playoffs.

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/media/nfl/2003/0925/photo/a_edwards_i.jpg
"You play to win the game. HELLO?"

rahulsekhar
02-14-2004, 09:59 PM
Just remember - the owners offered to put in a salary cap, a salary floor, and increased revenue sharing (I believe their offer was 75%). All 3 were rejected by the MLBPA. What George is doing is 100% within the rules and those rules were the only salary drag the MLBPA would allow. So get pissed if you want, but IMO it's misplaced to do so at the owners.

My hope is that this pisses off enough players that they start to put some pressure on Fehr & co for salary restraints. I doubt it'll happen, but most of these guys can't be very thrilled with current circumstances. Not if they play to win anyway.

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
I don't think the Yanks are totally invincible (and remember the deal isn't *official* yet unless I missed something, though it seems good as done); but they are going to be pretty tough. I still don't think we stacked up well to them or Boston anyway. Or Seattle, or Oakland, or Anaheim. For that matter Toronto. The AL is going to be very competetive this year as a whole.

Winning the division would be nice, and that is still a distinct possibility but by far not a foregone conclusion. IMO we still don't have strong enough pitching to carry us thru to the pennant. We will be out in the first round if we make it at all. We have done that already; how about trying to win a series or two? Would that be so bad? I don't buy the "anything can happen" scenarios either; why leave things to "chance" ?? Georgie-porgie sure doesn't. Take the bull by the horns; if you're gonna lose, go out guns ablazin'...at least you gave it your best shot. The Sox are not doing that IMHO. So you're agreeing with lowesox to white flag it because we may get knocked out of the first round?

beckett21
02-14-2004, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
We are better Than Detroit, Cleveland and Texas.

Looking at things objectively, Duke you may not be that far off. We are probably better than Baltimore and Tampa Bay still, and I do think we are pretty much on a par with KC and Minny. The AL just looks really strong top to bottom this year. One thing is for sure, it's a good thing we are in the AL Central. At least we do still have a shot at postseason. Put us in the East or West and we have no chance.

OK SEAL, tell us why we're wrong! :D:

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
Looking at things objectively, Duke you may not be that far off. We are probably better than Baltimore and Tampa Bay still, and I do think we are pretty much on a par with KC and Minny. The AL just looks really strong top to bottom this year. One thing is for sure, it's a good thing we are in the AL Central. At least we do still have a shot at postseason. Put us in the East or West and we have no chance.

OK SEAL, tell us why we're wrong! :D: You're not wrong, but thinking hypothetically doesn't prove anything. We're in the AL Central, and we have a chance to win it. That's what my energy is focused on.

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by beckett21


OK SEAL, tell us why we're wrong! :D: Tell us why we should give up and spend all our time thinking that our team is worthless. :D:

beckett21
02-14-2004, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
So you're agreeing with lowesox to white flag it because we may get knocked out of the first round?

NO. Not at all. No way do I think we should white-flag it. We can still win our division, and by all rights we should. I just think that we should be thinking beyond the division, that's all.

KW and JR should be thinking along the lines of..."Ok, how are we gonna beat the Yankees or the Angels..." instead of "how are we gonna beat Kansas City..." .We are playing down to the level of our competition, and we should be looking beyond that. If keeping Colon was not a good idea, then maybe Ponson would have been good to pick up. Forget Maddux, he was never an option.

Honestly, I would love to get one of Anaheim's extra arms like Washburn or Ortiz; forget the Dodgers, they aren't going to budge on their prized prospects so screw em. We just need more than we have right now to go deep into postseason; but I do agree with you that we can and SHOULD win our division. I just don't know if we will with what we have now.

beckett21
02-14-2004, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Tell us why we should give up and spend all our time thinking that our team is worthless. :D:

This is all wearing me out...LET'S PLAY SOME BALL!!! :)

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
NO. Not at all. No way do I think we should white-flag it. We can still win our division, and by all rights we should. I just think that we should be thinking beyond the division, that's all.

KW and JR should be thinking along the lines of..."Ok, how are we gonna beat the Yankees or the Angels..." instead of "how are we gonna beat Kansas City..." .We are playing down to the level of our competition, and we should be looking beyond that. If keeping Colon was not a good idea, then maybe Ponson would have been good to pick up. Forget Maddux, he was never an option.

Honestly, I would love to get one of Anaheim's extra arms like Washburn or Ortiz; forget the Dodgers, they aren't going to budge on their prized prospects so screw em. We just need more than we have right now to go deep into postseason; but I do agree with you that we can and SHOULD win our division. I just don't know if we will with what we have now. No one likes to hear it, but in order for the payroll to increase, the team needs to make more money. Maybe it could have been increased slightly higher than it is, but in order to make it consistent, things need to change. Bash me all you want, but it's just not smart to sustain large amounts of debt in order to put a better team together. Right now our team is at it's limit, and it would be nice if that weren't so, but I want to remain competitive in the future as well. I would certainly like to have more pitching, and ideally I would like to have the division locked up, and a team that could no doubt compete deep in the playoffs. At the same time though, we have to be smart with how the money is spent. Sounds like the organization, right? Well maybe they're right. I think our team is good, and if we can compete and go to the playoffs, maybe some extra revenue will come from it, and next year's payroll will be increased significantly. That with the addition of some of our guys that we can develop ourselves will make us even more solid than we are. I want to see how are season goes before I give up on the players we do have. Besides, after being eliminated the last couple years as an underacheiving team, the plaoffs would be an accomplishment. I want a World Series, and I know no one wants to hear this as well, but if you're good enough to make the playoffs, you have a shot to advance and win. Call me crazy, I hear it all day here. I want to see it not work out (before I give up), and what we need, not what it says on paper. We've predicted that way too much with little results.

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
This is all wearing me out...LET'S PLAY SOME BALL!!! :) That's what I'm saying. :smile:

beckett21
02-14-2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Just remember - the owners offered to put in a salary cap, a salary floor, and increased revenue sharing (I believe their offer was 75%). All 3 were rejected by the MLBPA. What George is doing is 100% within the rules and those rules were the only salary drag the MLBPA would allow. So get pissed if you want, but IMO it's misplaced to do so at the owners.

My hope is that this pisses off enough players that they start to put some pressure on Fehr & co for salary restraints. I doubt it'll happen, but most of these guys can't be very thrilled with current circumstances. Not if they play to win anyway.

Ok, sir, if indeed you are not JR as we all suspect...

You are correct sir. Steinbrenner is the most evil figure in sports, but the guy cares only about winning to the point of extreme. I thought those shots of him up in his box during the series were priceless, along with Cashman's looks of horror. This is one we can't pin on the owners because as you point out they tried to stop this from happening.

The players are not going to budge on this issue--why should they? They would be limiting their own salaries, going against what so many of their predecessors fought for. That is why we are probably going to be looking at another prolonged work stoppage in 2006 IMO. I think someone else may have said this, but perhaps the BEST thing that could happen now is that the Yankees win/buy the next two WS titles, forcing a change. Obviously it has gotten way out of control, but you can't blame a guy because he is willing to spend $200 mil on payroll while other teams *ahem* are substantially below that.

So I have to agree with you for once on your stand defending the establishment over the little guy...as much as this pains me to do so. :D:

And to be clear, I do not support a salary cap.

beckett21
02-14-2004, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
No one likes to hear it, but in order for the payroll to increase, the team needs to make more money. Maybe it could have been increased slightly higher than it is, but in order to make it consistent, things need to change. Bash me all you want, but it's just not smart to sustain large amounts of debt in order to put a better team together. Right now our team is at it's limit, and it would be nice if that weren't so, but I want to remain competitive in the future as well. I would certainly like to have more pitching, and ideally I would like to have the division locked up, and a team that could no doubt compete deep in the playoffs. At the same time though, we have to be smart with how the money is spent. Sounds like the organization, right? Well maybe they're right. I think our team is good, and if we can compete and go to the playoffs, maybe some extra revenue will come from it, and next year's payroll will be increased significantly. That with the addition of some of our guys that we can develop ourselves will make us even more solid than we are. I want to see how are season goes before I give up on the players we do have. Besides, after being eliminated the last couple years as an underacheiving team, the plaoffs would be an accomplishment. I want a World Series, and I know no one wants to hear this as well, but if you're good enough to make the playoffs, you have a shot to advance and win. Call me crazy, I hear it all day here. I want to see it not work out, and what we need, not what it says on paper. We've predicted that way too much with little results.

I would never call ya crazy SEAL; I have so many others to do that for me! :D: :D: :D:

Dude, I really really REALLY hope that things play out the way you see them; believe it or not I really do. I wouldn't turn down a shot at the playoffs for anything. Playoff baseball is the most exciting event in sports in my world. I would just like to go into it thinking we had a snowballs chance in hell of making some noise there. This team has WAY too many question marks today--today being the key word. All is not lost yet; but if we do nothing it could be.

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
I would never call ya crazy SEAL; I have so many others to do that for me! :D: :D: :D:

Dude, I really really REALLY hope that things play out the way you see them; believe it or not I really do. I wouldn't turn down a shot at the playoffs for anything. Playoff baseball is the most exciting event in sports in my world. I would just like to go into it thinking we had a snowballs chance in hell of making some noise there. This team has WAY too many question marks today--today being the key word. All is not lost yet; but if we do nothing it could be. I hear ya. We aren't the best out there, I'm not crazy enough to dispute that. I'm just excited about the Sox and baseball, and if I really thought we didn't have a chance to at least win the division, I probably wouldn't even post anything. I would just be bummed. I think we do have a legit shot at winning the Central, and to me, that's an improvement. I just think if we can do that, even if we lose in the playoffs (which I'm not saying with any confidence that we would for sure) that are team can improve with payroll and getting FA to think more highly of the Sox. Good things could come from it, and we can build from that. I'm not going to tell you that I believe we are going to the World Series, but by winning the division, I think it brings us a step closer to becoming a team that gets there. That's what excites me. Maybe I am way off base, but even if we went out and got Ponson, would you really think we were legitimately closer to the series. No. Would it have improved our team, probably. With that being the case though, I still have confidence in the people we have.

Daver
02-14-2004, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Just remember - the owners offered to put in a salary cap, a salary floor, and increased revenue sharing (I believe their offer was 75%). All 3 were rejected by the MLBPA.

No,MLB brought up the issue of the salary cap,not all the owners were in agreement with it.The same goes for a salary floor.The revenue sharing deal was killed by the owners before it ever came to the players,unless you are referring to the paltry amounts that are shared through the MLB liscensing rights.

A salary cap does one thing,it guarantees the owners profit margin.If you want parity in MLB then blow up the system and start all over from scratch,the same as the NFL did.

rahulsekhar
02-14-2004, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by beckett21


KW and JR should be thinking along the lines of..."Ok, how are we gonna beat the Yankees or the Angels..." instead of "how are we gonna beat Kansas City..." .We are playing down to the level of our competition, and we should be looking beyond that.



We have to face facts: There is no way that JR & KW can plan on beating the Yanks/BoSox quite simply because they do not have and never will have the revenue base of those teams. The only way you can plan to beat them is to hope for injury or an amazing run of luck/chemistry. Even the Marlins would admit that played a HUGE role in their win.

IMO what the Sox need to do is focus on getting to the playoffs, and then hope to catch fire - that's really what most of the AL has to hope for.

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
We have to face facts: There is no way that JR & KW can plan on beating the Yanks/BoSox quite simply because they do not have and never will have the revenue base of those teams. The only way you can plan to beat them is to hope for injury or an amazing run of luck/chemistry. Even the Marlins would admit that played a HUGE role in their win.

IMO what the Sox need to do is focus on getting to the playoffs, and then hope to catch fire - that's really what most of the AL has to hope for. I agree.

beckett21
02-14-2004, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
We have to face facts: There is no way that JR & KW can plan on beating the Yanks/BoSox quite simply because they do not have and never will have the revenue base of those teams. The only way you can plan to beat them is to hope for injury or an amazing run of luck/chemistry. Even the Marlins would admit that played a HUGE role in their win.

IMO what the Sox need to do is focus on getting to the playoffs, and then hope to catch fire - that's really what most of the AL has to hope for.

Oakland competes year in and year out on a shoestring; they have suffered from the loss of Giambi and will miss Tejada no doubt; but their pitching sustains them, for as long as they can afford it I suppose.

The Marlins were a rare case indeed. No way to explain that one logically. But there was a team with NO fan support (and I lived in Miami for 3 years, I know of what I speak) that was still able to succeed. Twice.

What about Minnesota? What kind of payroll and support do they have? They were on the verge of contraction for cryin' out loud.

I don't think that the revenue base needs to be the SOLE determining factor. Player development, evaluation, those things are priceless. Doesn't hurt to have 5 #1 picks in a row, either, I suppose; but many a great player has gone undrafted. Money is not the end-all be-all. It sure helps though. But Chicago is not a small market, and there is room enough for two successful teams here. Put a winner on the south side and they will come...and they will spend more $$$...Question is--does the money go back into the TEAM...or into JR and Co.'s pockets?

idseer
02-14-2004, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
We have to face facts: There is no way that JR & KW can plan on beating the Yanks/BoSox quite simply because they do not have and never will have the revenue base of those teams. The only way you can plan to beat them is to hope for injury or an amazing run of luck/chemistry. Even the Marlins would admit that played a HUGE role in their win.

IMO what the Sox need to do is focus on getting to the playoffs, and then hope to catch fire - that's really what most of the AL has to hope for.

while all this is probably true there is one thing that still bothers me. even if by some miracle we were to win it all ... we still would have no illusions about being the best.
i found winning in and of itself is not the biggest thing. knowing you are the best is more important.
the bulls not only won a bunch of championships, they were the best ... and everyone knew it. if the sox were to pull it off somehow (most likely 100,000 to 1) we'd all know they got very lucky. we'd know that a bunch of teams were still better.

i want what the sox will NEVER give us, at least under the current regime, the best team in baseball!

beckett21
02-14-2004, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by idseer
while all this is probably true there is one thing that still bothers me. even if by some miracle we were to win it all ... we still would have no illusions about being the best.
i found winning in and of itself is not the biggest thing. knowing you are the best is more important.
the bulls not only won a bunch of championships, they were the best ... and everyone knew it. if the sox were to pull it off somehow (most likely 100,000 to 1) we'd all know they got very lucky. we'd know that a bunch of teams were still better.

i want what the sox will NEVER give us, at least under the current regime, the best team in baseball!

I feel your pain...but I'd still take the luck as opposed to nothing! :D:

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by idseer
while all this is probably true there is one thing that still bothers me. even if by some miracle we were to win it all ... we still would have no illusions about being the best.
i found winning in and of itself is not the biggest thing. knowing you are the best is more important.
the bulls not only won a bunch of championships, they were the best ... and everyone knew it. if the sox were to pull it off somehow (most likely 100,000 to 1) we'd all know they got very lucky. we'd know that a bunch of teams were still better.

i want what the sox will NEVER give us, at least under the current regime, the best team in baseball! Are you serious? Do you think the Marlins or their fans could care a less if they are considered the best. How is that the most important thing. If we won it all, how could anyone even say, "Well that's great, but you weren't the best." I would laugh intheir face. The best you say, whatever, we're world series champs. If you're the best, you sure have a terrible way of showing it.

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
I feel your pain...but I'd still take the luck as opposed to nothing! :D: I don't care if you are the best team, luck followed you if you won it all.

Jjav829
02-14-2004, 11:35 PM
Unbelievable. Seriously, unbelievable. What George wants, George gets. And Red Sox fans, well they have no one to blame but their ownership. The Manny/Arod thing could have been done. They could all be getting ready for Arod to report to camp as a member of the Boston Red Sox. And thats the difference between George and everyone else. When George gets his mind set on something, he doesn't let anything get in the way of it. Obviously that being because he has the money. I would hate to be a Red Sox fan right now. This is a dagger to the heart for Red Sox nation. Arod was theirs. It was done. And BAM!, he's a Yankee. All the good feelings that the Red Sox built up with the Schilling trade and Foulke signing, gone.

Does this make the Yankees a guaranteed lock? No. Are they even the favorite in the AL East? Who knows. The Red Sox still have the most dangerous 1-2 punch in baseball with Pedro and Curt. Assuming they get into the playoffs, as long as those two are healthy they have a great chance to win any series especially with Lowe following them up. But it remains to be seen how good that BoSox offense will be. Sure they were great last year, but is Bill Mueller going to lead the AL in hitting again while posting a top 20 OPS? I doubt it. Will David Ortiz and Kevin Millar repeat their career years? Not likely. There are still bad feelings with Nomar and Manny hasn't become any less of a clubhouse cancer. I don't think this assures the Yankees of anything. There is one thing it does, and that is it screws the Red Sox....yet again.

It's a shame the best shortstop in all of baseball will no longer be the best shortstop in all of baseball. Can Arod go down as the best shortstop to ever play the game if he never plays another game at shortstop? I don't think so.

So who plays 2B for the Yanks? Who cares? The guy could hit .230 and as long as he can play good defense over there, he would be fine. Though I wouldn't put it past George to go inquire about Jose Vidro. For that matter, I'll post it here first, if the Dbacks are not in contention by the All-star break, Randy Johnson will finish his career in pinstripes.

TornLabrum
02-14-2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Winning the division still means something. Besides if you want the young guys to develop, let them get a taste of what it takes and what it means to win.

In our case it usually means 3 and out. And what young players are you talking about?

SEALgep
02-14-2004, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
In our case it usually means 3 and out. And what young players are you talking about? Crede, Olivo, Garland, Buehrle, Lee, and even Rowand and Harris for all those who can't stand them. We also have several pitchers that may make appearances on occasion or start the season in the pen.

rahulsekhar
02-14-2004, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
Oakland competes year in and year out on a shoestring; they have suffered from the loss of Giambi and will miss Tejada no doubt; but their pitching sustains them, for as long as they can afford it I suppose.

The Marlins were a rare case indeed. No way to explain that one logically. But there was a team with NO fan support (and I lived in Miami for 3 years, I know of what I speak) that was still able to succeed. Twice.

What about Minnesota? What kind of payroll and support do they have? They were on the verge of contraction for cryin' out loud.

I don't think that the revenue base needs to be the SOLE determining factor. Player development, evaluation, those things are priceless. Doesn't hurt to have 5 #1 picks in a row, either, I suppose; but many a great player has gone undrafted. Money is not the end-all be-all. It sure helps though. But Chicago is not a small market, and there is room enough for two successful teams here. Put a winner on the south side and they will come...and they will spend more $$$...Question is--does the money go back into the TEAM...or into JR and Co.'s pockets?

I'm confused - from my understanding, the Sox DO put the $$$ needed into scouting & player development (they've even relented on their opposition to big signing bonuses). You can say they haven't scouted Asia or certian Latin American countries (although they do well in many), but the only area where I can really see them deciding not to play is in major FA - which is 100% based on our revenue base.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by them planning to beat NY/Boston. IMO, they do plan on developing young talent, they just haven't been able to match that with free agents.

As for the Oakland comparison - i think that's what the Sox are trying to do - get those 3 starters who come up together (i.e. are cheap), which keeps you in contention. That's got to be the MO for all non-NY/Bos teams. The Sox are hoping that they can pair Buehrle with an improved Garland and Rauch/Cotts/Honel/Diaz/whoever.

beckett21
02-14-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
I'm confused - from my understanding, the Sox DO put the $$$ needed into scouting & player development (they've even relented on their opposition to big signing bonuses). You can say they haven't scouted Asia or certian Latin American countries (although they do well in many), but the only area where I can really see them deciding not to play is in major FA - which is 100% based on our revenue base.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by them planning to beat NY/Boston. IMO, they do plan on developing young talent, they just haven't been able to match that with free agents.

As for the Oakland comparison - i think that's what the Sox are trying to do - get those 3 starters who come up together (i.e. are cheap), which keeps you in contention. That's got to be the MO for all non-NY/Bos teams. The Sox are hoping that they can pair Buehrle with an improved Garland and Rauch/Cotts/Honel/Diaz/whoever.

They've been planning to develop young talent FOR YEARS...need we rehash the pain of the Scott Ruffcorns, et. al. that are complete BUSTS... this has been repeated ad nauseum.

The intentions may be there, but there is something lost in the translation. Rauch and Borchard are two more on which the window is starting to close...can we develop ANYBODY?? Well of course we have developed a few, but by and large our top guns NEVER live up to the hype. Maybe they are overhyped, not that good to begin with; who knows. But we supposedly had the best young arms in the game in the late '90's and what do we have to show for it?? That's what I mean. We either:(1) cannot develop the guys we have; or (2) are picking the wrong guys. Sure they PLAN it...could they please just DO it?

Is that so confusing???

red faber
02-15-2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by habibharu
espnews reports that AROD just got traded to the yankees!


well people,it looks like the yankmees have bought yet another championship!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD,SOMEBODY,ANYBODY,PUT A SALARY CAP IN BASEBALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MRKARNO
02-15-2004, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
can we develop ANYBODY??

:KW

"Well people were mad at me when I put that guy with the funny name in right and I put carlos Lee in left. They said to me: 'who is Carlos Lee?'"

TornLabrum
02-15-2004, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Crede, Olivo, Garland, Buehrle, Lee, and even Rowand and Harris for all those who can't stand them. We also have several pitchers that may make appearances on occasion or start the season in the pen.

Buehrle and Lee were in the 2000 playoffs. Granted, Buehrle only went a third of an inning, but he did manage a strikeout so he apparently showed some poise. Lee played in all three games and had 11 AB. So he has about as much playoff experience as most of the rest of the 2000 squad.

SEALgep
02-15-2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
They've been planning to develop young talent FOR YEARS...need we rehash the pain of the Scott Ruffcorns, et. al. that are complete BUSTS... this has been repeated ad nauseum.

The intentions may be there, but there is something lost in the translation. Rauch and Borchard are two more on which the window is starting to close...can we develop ANYBODY?? Well of course we have developed a few, but by and large our top guns NEVER live up to the hype. Maybe they are overhyped, not that good to begin with; who knows. But we supposedly had the best young arms in the game in the late '90's and what do we have to show for it?? That's what I mean. We either:(1) cannot develop the guys we have; or (2) are picking the wrong guys. Sure they PLAN it...could they please just DO it?

Is that so confusing??? It's not confusing, but if it was easy, it wouldn't be hard ( I got that from Yogi, lol.) Things happen, but I'm not sure it is fair to solely blame the Sox for some of these guys not panning out. You can't predict injuries (for the most part) and that has hindered a lot of our pitching talent. Things happen, but Maggs and now Carlos Lee have been panning out. Buerhle as well, and hopefully Garland can come into his own this season.

idseer
02-15-2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
I feel your pain...but I'd still take the luck as opposed to nothing! :D:

i would too! :smile:

SEALgep
02-15-2004, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Buehrle and Lee were in the 2000 playoffs. Granted, Buehrle only went a third of an inning, but he did manage a strikeout so he apparently showed some poise. Lee played in all three games and had 11 AB. So he has about as much playoff experience as most of the rest of the 2000 squad. Great, let's give them some more.

beckett21
02-15-2004, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
:KW

"Well people were mad at me when I put that guy with the funny name in right and I put carlos Lee in left. They said to me: 'who is Carlos Lee?'"

Touche'. But where are all these great pitchers we have been promised? I spot you Buerhle. Garland--not yet. Anyone else I am forgetting?

SEALgep
02-15-2004, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by idseer
i would too! :smile: Didn't you say winning isn't important, only the appearance of being the best team is?

beckett21
02-15-2004, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by SEALgep
It's not confusing, but if it was easy, it wouldn't be hard ( I got that from Yogi, lol.) Things happen, but I'm not sure it is fair to solely blame the Sox for some of these guys not panning out. You can't predict injuries (for the most part) and that has hindered a lot of our pitching talent. Things happen, but Maggs and now Carlos Lee have been panning out. Buerhle as well, and hopefully Garland can come into his own this season.

Fair enough, but thru sheer dumb luck eventually SOMEBODY has to pan out. Our minor league system used to be so highly touted, and all we kept hearing was "wait until these guys develop..." :?:

red faber
02-15-2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
They've been planning to develop young talent FOR YEARS...need we rehash the pain of the Scott Ruffcorns, et. al. that are complete BUSTS... this has been repeated ad nauseum.

The intentions may be there, but there is something lost in the translation. Rauch and Borchard are two more on which the window is starting to close...can we develop ANYBODY?? Well of course we have developed a few, but by and large our top guns NEVER live up to the hype. Maybe they are overhyped, not that good to begin with; who knows. But we supposedly had the best young arms in the game in the late '90's and what do we have to show for it?? That's what I mean. We either:(1) cannot develop the guys we have; or (2) are picking the wrong guys. Sure they PLAN it...could they please just DO it?

Is that so confusing???


you have a good point beckett 21..

it all comes down to this,do we have the personnel capable of developing talent.

and that answer is obviously NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MRKARNO
02-15-2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
Touche'. But where are all these great pitchers we have been promised? I spot you Buerhle. Garland--not yet. Anyone else I am forgetting?

:KW

"Well it doesn't matter how good your farm system does when you can spot pitchers like Esteban Loaiza."

If Girilli does very well this year and Loaiza continues his success, then I personally couldnt care less about how our minor leaguers never pan out.

MRKARNO
02-15-2004, 12:10 AM
:tomatoaward

SEALgep
02-15-2004, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by red faber
you have a good point beckett 21..

it all comes down to this,do we have the personnel capable of developing talent.

and that answer is obviously NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't think that's necessarily fair. As I said, injuries aren't predictable unless you take a chance on a guy with superior talent but has health risks.

SEALgep
02-15-2004, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
Fair enough, but thru sheer dumb luck eventually SOMEBODY has to pan out. Our minor league system used to be so highly touted, and all we kept hearing was "wait until these guys develop..." :?: I hear ya. This is some optimism that can be argued, but we might be looking good if Cotts, Honel become ready at the same time with good stuff. Buerhle, Garland (assuming he brings it this year), Cotts, Honel, and about a million people we could add for a fifth guy (even he isn't the fifth spot.) We'll see, but these guys can certainly be impact pitchers. Rauch too.

beckett21
02-15-2004, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by red faber
you have a good point beckett 21..

it all comes down to this,do we have the personnel capable of developing talent.

and that answer is obviously NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you sir...SOMEBODY has to be at fault, right?? Our society is based on blame; nobody can ever take the blame themselves, it has to be somebody else's fault.

At some point we have to point the finger at our own organization. Somebody somewhere is not doing their job, whether it be scouting, coaching, etc. Other teams are doing it better, obviously.

beckett21
02-15-2004, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
:KW

"Well it doesn't matter how good your farm system does when you can spot pitchers like Esteban Loaiza."

If Girilli does very well this year and Loaiza continues his success, then I personally couldnt care less about how our minor leaguers never pan out.

For every Esteban Loaiza there are 10 Robert Persons. Great if you can catch lightning in a bottle every time, but that is not the case.

I am high on Grilli and I hope he does well. He would be a nice surprise, one we could surely use.

SEALgep
02-15-2004, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
For every Esteban Loaiza there are 10 Robert Persons. Great if you can catch lightning in a bottle every time, but that is not the case.

I am high on Grilli and I hope he does well. He would be a nice surprise, one we could surely use. Especially since he has some years left in him. I am pretty hopeful for him, and is my favorite to win the fifth spot. We'll have to see. I hope the best man wins it, but I think Grilli, or maybe Rauch, will be that guy.

gosox41
02-15-2004, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
Touche'. But where are all these great pitchers we have been promised? I spot you Buerhle. Garland--not yet. Anyone else I am forgetting?

Beckett, I don't know if this was you who brought up a point in an earlier post or not. Someone mentioned Beane was lucky because he had Mulder, Hudson and Zito.

So Beane is lucky for having 3 aces. But when the Sox can't develop pitcher's it's bad scouting. Which one is it? I'd like to hear from a lot of people. I think Beane has more then luck on his side and the Sox have done a horrible job developing pitching but a good job developing position players.

Bob

beckett21
02-15-2004, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Beckett, I don't know if this was you who brought up a point in an earlier post or not. Someone mentioned Beane was lucky because he had Mulder, Hudson and Zito.

So Beane is lucky for having 3 aces. But when the Sox can't develop pitcher's it's bad scouting. Which one is it? I'd like to hear from a lot of people. I think Beane has more then luck on his side and the Sox have done a horrible job developing pitching but a good job developing position players.

Bob

Can't remember a specific post, but I have to agree with you that Beane would have to be quite lucky, indeed, to "luck" into that trio. Not to mention Harden looks like a legitimate star to be in his own right. I don't think it is luck at all. Lightning doesn't strike that many times in a row, does it?

As with most of these debates, I feel the truth is somewhere in between. Certainly we have gotten some bad breaks. But for some reason we are not developing our pitchers to compete at the major league level. Honestly I don't know the answer because I don't know a whole lot about our minor league system. I don't know what is happening. But I sure hope we get it straightened out. Hopefully someone here with a little more insight can shed more light on this. It's a mystery.

SEALgep
02-15-2004, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
Can't remember a specific post, but I have to agree with you that Beane would have to be quite lucky, indeed, to "luck" into that trio. Not to mention Harden looks like a legitimate star to be in his own right. I don't think it is luck at all. Lightning doesn't strike that many times in a row, does it?

As with most of these debates, I feel the truth is somewhere in between. Certainly we have gotten some bad breaks. But for some reason we are not developing our pitchers to compete at the major league level. Honestly I don't know the answer because I don't know a whole lot about our minor league system. I don't know what is happening. But I sure hope we get it straightened out. Hopefully someone here with a little more insight can shed more light on this. It's a mystery. Oakland's scenerio is a little unique. They had multiple high pick drafts and used them on can't miss studs, if I'm not mistaken. I still stand by that we have gotten unlucky in most cases. If Zito had gotten injured and Mulder, we wouldn't be using them. As I said though, these guys were pretty much can't miss. Wright was a legitmate starter, injured, Rauch derailed, injured, ect..... But before we get all pissed about it, we currently have a new director in scouting, Dave Wilder. He's considered very good, and has the talent to be a GM today (not just someday). Let's see what he can do. Maybe the problem is in the minor leagues in developing, but I still think our injuries are the main reason. If not though, I'm sure Wilder will notice something, and fix it. Hopefully he can get some can't misses with us too.

Lip Man 1
02-15-2004, 01:29 AM
Folks:

A few points:

Munchman please re-read my post, what did I say? "They now have an All Star at practically every position."

Winning Ugly: No I'm not in favor of blowing the team up because with the PR / visability problems this organization has that's the last thing they should do. Go out and win 82 games at least that's a "winning" season. Realistically that's about the best we can do but it's better then losing 100 (since the Sox probably couldn't or wouldn't be able to afford to pay to their top 10 or top 5 pick anyway...)

This deal will go down because in all this time you haven't heard one peep out of Donald Fehr, Gene Orza and the MLBPA. That means that unlike the Red Sox, the Yanks are playing by the rules of the CBA.

Jeter stays at short because even though Rodriguez is better at that position, mentally it would ruin him. He already went through hell last year because of George's comments. Even the Yanks aren't dumb enough to destroy a very good player.

From what I have been seeing now there may be a change in the deal...Soriano, Contraras and their top minor league catcher are reportedly going to Texas. This does leave the back end of the rotation a little thin but the Yanks will go out and buy someone in July.

Do you realize BOTH the Yanks and Boston could win 100 - 110 games?

Finally...the ONLY way the Yanks don't make the playoffs is if their plane crashes or World War III begins.

Lip

MRKARNO
02-15-2004, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Do you realize BOTH the Yanks and Boston could win 100 - 110 games?


But does it really matter? The 2001 M's won 116 games. That really helped them a lot in the postseason. They lost in the first round. A team with 88 wins got 5 outs away from the WS (Cubs). All that's important is that you actually get into the playoffs and have a solid team, not necessarily an amazing team. Once you're in, any team can win.

CWSGuy406
02-15-2004, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
Can't remember a specific post, but I have to agree with you that Beane would have to be quite lucky, indeed, to "luck" into that trio. Not to mention Harden looks like a legitimate star to be in his own right. I don't think it is luck at all. Lightning doesn't strike that many times in a row, does it?

As with most of these debates, I feel the truth is somewhere in between. Certainly we have gotten some bad breaks. But for some reason we are not developing our pitchers to compete at the major league level. Honestly I don't know the answer because I don't know a whole lot about our minor league system. I don't know what is happening. But I sure hope we get it straightened out. Hopefully someone here with a little more insight can shed more light on this. It's a mystery.

Yeah, I don't think Beane is getting lucky, because you may get lucky on one or two, but Oakland has multiple very talented pitchers (Mulder, Zito, Hudson) and a couple of up-and-coming pitchers (Blanton, Harden). You don't get lucky on five pitchers. Good scouting gets you those guys. Perhaps the Sox don't have that right now, or maybe "luck" hasn't been on the side of our Sox (injuries).

kempsted
02-15-2004, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Oakland's scenerio is a little unique. They had multiple high pick drafts and used them on can't miss studs, if I'm not mistaken. I still stand by that we have gotten unlucky in most cases. If Zito had gotten injured and Mulder, we wouldn't be using them. As I said though, these guys were pretty much can't miss. Wright was a legitmate starter, injured, Rauch derailed, injured, ect..... But before we get all pissed about it, we currently have a new director in scouting, Dave Wilder. He's considered very good, and has the talent to be a GM today (not just someday). Let's see what he can do. Maybe the problem is in the minor leagues in developing, but I still think our injuries are the main reason. If not though, I'm sure Wilder will notice something, and fix it. Hopefully he can get some can't misses with us too.

Zito, Harden and Hudson - none of them were can't miss. No one wanted Zito. He doesn't throw hard enough for baseball scouts. Zito is one of the Billy Beane poster kids - he creates the stars that no one else wanted and then they say - Well he is just lucky to have gotten X.

kempsted
02-15-2004, 02:06 AM
Before we hand it all to the Yankees keep in mind the only difference between the team now and the team everyone was picking to be second in their division is they will have gained ARod and lost Boone and Soriono.

Not that Win shares is the be all and end all but it will help to make my point.

ARod - 32 Win shares

A Soriano 27 win shares
Boone 23 win shares

So they will need a better than average replacement at 2b to even be as good as last year. Yes that can still happen because they are the Bankees but ...

It is a great trade for Texas though. They get out from under ARod and get a player that won't be a huge drop off.

minastirith67
02-15-2004, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
Wow. Is there any hope for any team in the AL now? Only the biggest choke in history could stop them from winning it all


Um, isn't the evidence of the Marlins last season good enough to oppose what you suggest? I mean even a limited payroll can beat the yankees. The Sox did it last season for 4/6 games. Have some faith man.

DSpivack
02-15-2004, 02:56 AM
On one hand, the last two/three World Series have lent evidence to the argument that 'salary doesn't matter'- Arizona [to some extent] Anaheim and Florida haven't exactly had super-high payrolls.

On the other hand, the Red Sox have a payroll of well over $100 million, while the Yanks approach $200 million .

I still can't see how anyone could possibly say there is nothing wrong with the economics of baseball. As annoying as Bob Costas can be, his book a few years ago on reforming baseball seemed right on the mark [not that he came up with everything there, but it was merely a good representation of the reforms that seem necessary].

$200 Million Payroll. Think about that. Think of how incredibly [I]disgusting that is. And not because Steinbrenner is satan- he may be evil to opponents- but the man seems to only care about winning. He is 'destroying' the sport, but only because baseball seems to let him do so.

The 1994 strike was more than just a dissapoint for White Sox fans; it seemed a great turning point in baseball; when problems that were only approaching seemed fixable- it was a true opportunity for MLB to follow the lines of the NFL. And no, the NFL is not perfect, but does seem a whole lot better off than MLB.

The financial situation seems more disgusting every day- you either have to have a combination of incredible talent, scouting, luck and youth, a la the Marlins, Angels of 2002, A's, or even the Twins; or you have to have an incredible payroll- a la the Yankees, Red Sox, or the 2004 Angels [we'll see how they do].

NHL doesn't have a cap, and appears for a very rocky offseason, and another lockout seems likely.

This is 2004. How far away are we from another 1994?

StillMissOzzie
02-15-2004, 03:26 AM
I believe, and hope, that this trade becomes the MLB analogy to Kevin Garnett's last mega-million dollar deal with the NBA T-Wolves. He became the touchstone for the NBA's new CBA, or whatever they call it in the NBA. I don't know if a salary cap is the answer, or part of the answer, but I think Daver is right: MLB, with or without the MLBPA, needs to blow it all up and start over again. It may take a work stoppage the likes of what I think we'll be seeing with the NHL after this season ends - long and acrimonious.

SMO
:angry:

idseer
02-15-2004, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Didn't you say winning isn't important, only the appearance of being the best team is?

seal, i'm really sorry you have no clue as to what i was saying.

A. Cavatica
02-15-2004, 08:42 AM
Sox will win 77 games...and win the Central.

PINWHEELS
02-15-2004, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by kempsted
Before we hand it all to the Yankees keep in mind the only difference between the team now and the team everyone was picking to be second in their division is they will have gained ARod and lost Boone and Soriono.

Not that Win shares is the be all and end all but it will help to make my point.

ARod - 32 Win shares

A Soriano 27 win shares
Boone 23 win shares

So they will need a better than average replacement at 2b to even be as good as last year. Yes that can still happen because they are the Bankees but ...

It is a great trade for Texas though. They get out from under ARod and get a player that won't be a huge drop off. And their payroll goes from 105mil down to 65mil! Now they can start spending some money on pitching which is what they need. And as far as the yankees go, I hope they lose in the playoffs again because i would laugh my balls off again!

Baby Fisk
02-15-2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by habibharu
espnews reports that AROD just got traded to the yankees!
Never mind Gammons, I wonder how our friend Otis is taking it. Hope he's not floating in Boston Harbor by now...

*that's the sound of millions of hairs being torn from the scalps of BoSox fans*

CubKilla
02-15-2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Baby Fisk
Never mind Gammons, I wonder how our friend Otis is taking it. Hope he's not floating in Boston Harbor by now...

*that's the sound of millions of hairs being torn from the scalps of BoSox fans*

The Red Sox are still going to win the AL East.

rahulsekhar
02-15-2004, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
They've been planning to develop young talent FOR YEARS...need we rehash the pain of the Scott Ruffcorns, et. al. that are complete BUSTS... this has been repeated ad nauseum.

The intentions may be there, but there is something lost in the translation. Rauch and Borchard are two more on which the window is starting to close...can we develop ANYBODY?? Well of course we have developed a few, but by and large our top guns NEVER live up to the hype. Maybe they are overhyped, not that good to begin with; who knows. But we supposedly had the best young arms in the game in the late '90's and what do we have to show for it?? That's what I mean. We either:(1) cannot develop the guys we have; or (2) are picking the wrong guys. Sure they PLAN it...could they please just DO it?

Is that so confusing???

Well - I was just relating back to your original point that they should be planning to beat the Yanks. I think they do plan to beat them in the only way how - but like with many teams, it's an inexact science. IMO the biggest "misses" that are currently killing this team are Borchard, Rauch, & Garland - if those guys had come through we'd be in a MUCH different situation. Is it coaching & development? Or is it the vagaries of the MLB draft & scouting? Who knows?

SEALgep
02-15-2004, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by idseer
while all this is probably true there is one thing that still bothers me. even if by some miracle we were to win it all ... we still would have no illusions about being the best.
i found winning in and of itself is not the biggest thing. knowing you are the best is more important.
the bulls not only won a bunch of championships, they were the best ... and everyone knew it. if the sox were to pull it off somehow (most likely 100,000 to 1) we'd all know they got very lucky. we'd know that a bunch of teams were still better.

i want what the sox will NEVER give us, at least under the current regime, the best team in baseball!

Originally posted by SEALgep
Didn't you say winning isn't important, only the appearance of being the best team is?

seal, i'm really sorry you have no clue as to what i was saying.

How exactly did I misinterpret?

Baby Fisk
02-15-2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
The Red Sox are still going to win the AL East.
No, I'm seeing another of those hallucinatory season-finale nightmares unfolding for the folks in new england. Something bizarre will happen: someone will hit a fluke homer on the last day of the season, Schilling will get schelled for 8 runs in a one-game playoff, Nomar will botch a play and a pinch-running Joe Torre will score the division-clinching run...something typically poetic and heartbreaking. It's Boston. It's gonna happen.

rahulsekhar
02-15-2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by StillMissOzzie
I believe, and hope, that this trade becomes the MLB analogy to Kevin Garnett's last mega-million dollar deal with the NBA T-Wolves. He became the touchstone for the NBA's new CBA, or whatever they call it in the NBA. I don't know if a salary cap is the answer, or part of the answer, but I think Daver is right: MLB, with or without the MLBPA, needs to blow it all up and start over again. It may take a work stoppage the likes of what I think we'll be seeing with the NHL after this season ends - long and acrimonious.

SMO
:angry:

I for one would be happy to have no baseball for a year if it would result in a system like the NFL or even the NBA. Share ALL broadcast revenues and implement a salary cap AND floor with teams being allowed to go over to resign their own guys. Cap & Floor are linked to a specific set of revenues - media, apparel, tickets, concessions.

jabrch
02-15-2004, 12:39 PM
Rotoworld just said that Texas is picking up up-to 67mm of the A-Rod deal. If that's the case, it is a colossal mistake by Texas. Why pay over 1/3 of the deal? That's ridiculous.

santo=dorf
02-15-2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Rotoworld just said that Texas is picking up up-to 67mm of the A-Rod deal. If that's the case, it is a colossal mistake by Texas. Why pay over 1/3 of the deal? That's ridiculous.

Hicks doesn't want to pay 3/3's of the deal.

Lip Man 1
02-15-2004, 01:39 PM
Spivak:

You ask when we will see 1994 again. Book it...2006

The CBA ends.

MLB owners will have seen in very clear terms that the efforts so touted by Proud To Be Your Bud will have failed. (i.e. reigning in big spending teams...)

Fans will see that the San Diego's, Pittsburgh's Cincinnati's, White Sox (yes I now lump them in with the sad sack's) Kansas City's on the world STILL have no chance to get to the World Series because of those same moronic, cheap owners.

and the MLBPA, extremely pissed, over what they see as 'collusionary' tactics will not be in any type of mood to make 'more' concessions to the owners, like they did in good faith in 2002.

It's going to be the mother of all impasse's.

Lip

idseer
02-15-2004, 01:41 PM
Re: Re: There is no way
Quote:
Originally posted by idseer
while all this is probably true there is one thing that still bothers me. even if by some miracle we were to win it all ... we still would have no illusions about being the best.
i found winning in and of itself is not the biggest thing. knowing you are the best is more important.
the bulls not only won a bunch of championships, they were the best ... and everyone knew it. if the sox were to pull it off somehow (most likely 100,000 to 1) we'd all know they got very lucky. we'd know that a bunch of teams were still better.

i want what the sox will NEVER give us, at least under the current regime, the best team in baseball!



Quote:
Originally posted by SEALgep
Didn't you say winning isn't important, only the appearance of being the best team is?



Quote:
seal, i'm really sorry you have no clue as to what i was saying.



"How exactly did I misinterpret?"

you know ... if it isn't obvious then i'm not sure further explanation will help.
but i'll give it a go.

your question:
"Didn't you say winning isn't important, only the appearance of being the best team is? "

answer:
no ... i didn't. i said winning isn't the biggest thing. i said knowing you're the best is more important.

and i said NOTHING about the 'appearance of being the best team"

the fact that you twisted what i clearly said so badly, tells me you're not one to be taken very seriously ... even with your 16 or so posts a day!
if you're going to argue, at least get your facts straight.

dickallen15
02-15-2004, 02:01 PM
Its not like the Yankees are getting ARod for nothing. Soriano is a great offensive talent. Switching parks, I wouldn't be surprised if he puts up superior numbers than ARod. Defensively, its a different story, but ARod is going to have a little adjustment to 3rd. I agree with the above posts, I think Boston is still better.

rahulsekhar
02-15-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Beckett, I don't know if this was you who brought up a point in an earlier post or not. Someone mentioned Beane was lucky because he had Mulder, Hudson and Zito.

So Beane is lucky for having 3 aces. But when the Sox can't develop pitcher's it's bad scouting. Which one is it? I'd like to hear from a lot of people. I think Beane has more then luck on his side and the Sox have done a horrible job developing pitching but a good job developing position players.

Bob

Actually, it was me who said that. The point was not that it's luck that they developed those 3 guys, but that there is a big element of luck involved in having them come up at the same time (i.e. they're all cheap at the same time). In fact, over the past few years, as they've tied those guys up, theyve had more and more trouble because they can't put better teams around them.

The message for the Sox (and other teams) is that you need to be that much better at player development, but you also need some luck to have guys pan out together, before they get to expensive.

rahulsekhar
02-15-2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Spivak:

You ask when we will see 1994 again. Book it...2006

The CBA ends.

MLB owners will have seen in very clear terms that the efforts so touted by Proud To Be Your Bud will have failed. (i.e. reigning in big spending teams...)

Fans will see that the San Diego's, Pittsburgh's Cincinnati's, White Sox (yes I now lump them in with the sad sack's) Kansas City's on the world STILL have no chance to get to the World Series because of those same moronic, cheap owners.

and the MLBPA, extremely pissed, over what they see as 'collusionary' tactics will not be in any type of mood to make 'more' concessions to the owners, like they did in good faith in 2002.

It's going to be the mother of all impasse's.

Lip

I'm perplexed at how you make this situationout to be all the owners fault. Asif the players made changes "in good faith". The system works exactly as designed. If a team wants to go over the "cap" and get taxed, they can. And there is no mechanism in place to force teams to spend money, espeically when they're highly unlikely to win even if they do.

There were additional mechanisms proposed - salary floor, increased revenue sharing - which were rejected by the players union. Yes, the owners were willing to share 75% of revenues, and the MLBPA rejected that because they want to have the Yanks out there bidding up the price for all FAs. Fine - so that's what they get and this is the consequences. Not exactly Bud's fault that this is the best "control" they could get. Not when he tried for much more and couldn't get it past the players (kind of like the drug policy).

"Good faith" indeed. The only faith there was faith that the system would continue to drive up salaries.

SEALgep
02-15-2004, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by idseer
Re: Re: There is no way
Quote:
Originally posted by idseer
while all this is probably true there is one thing that still bothers me. even if by some miracle we were to win it all ... we still would have no illusions about being the best.
i found winning in and of itself is not the biggest thing. knowing you are the best is more important.
the bulls not only won a bunch of championships, they were the best ... and everyone knew it. if the sox were to pull it off somehow (most likely 100,000 to 1) we'd all know they got very lucky. we'd know that a bunch of teams were still better.

i want what the sox will NEVER give us, at least under the current regime, the best team in baseball!



Quote:
Originally posted by SEALgep
Didn't you say winning isn't important, only the appearance of being the best team is?



Quote:
seal, i'm really sorry you have no clue as to what i was saying.



"How exactly did I misinterpret?"

you know ... if it isn't obvious then i'm not sure further explanation will help.
but i'll give it a go.

your question:
"Didn't you say winning isn't important, only the appearance of being the best team is? "

answer:
no ... i didn't. i said winning isn't the biggest thing. i said knowing you're the best is more important.

and i said NOTHING about the 'appearance of being the best team"

the fact that you twisted what i clearly said so badly, tells me you're not one to be taken very seriously ... even with your 16 or so posts a day!
if you're going to argue, at least get your facts straight. You don't have to take me seriously, but I'm not sure how many people will take you seriously if you say it doesn't matter if the Sox win the World Series, because they still won't be considered the best team. That just seems illogical. I don't think anyone is going to tell a Marlins fan," Hey whatever World Champs, you weren't even the best team, lol." Whatever though, if you want to be upset about it, go ahead, but I'm sure more than a few agree with that sentiment.

83 White Sox
02-15-2004, 02:31 PM
any chance with texas' newfound financial flexibility that they make a serious run at maddux?

SEALgep
02-15-2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by 83 White Sox
any chance with texas' newfound financial flexibility that they make a serious run at maddux? I doubt it, they are more than happy to use that flexibility next year when the FA are more abundant. They don't have any realistic expectations to compete this year, and would just assume to build with it as opportunities appear. I don't see them trying to use that money right away on a guy like Maddux, even though he's good and that their primary need is pitching.

rahulsekhar
02-15-2004, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
I doubt it, they are more than happy to use that flexibility next year when the FA are more abundant. They don't have any realistic expectations to compete this year, and would just assume to build with it as opportunities appear. I don't see them trying to use that money right away on a guy like Maddux, even though he's good and that their primary need is pitching.

Not to mention that Texas doesn't meet any of his supposed criteria (AL, non-contender, non-WC). So they'd have to overpay, and then risk him getting shelled in a pitchers park. Highly unlikely they'll do that - they'll wait it out until next year.

Paulwny
02-15-2004, 03:31 PM
The Boston Globe is calling this trade "The Valentine's Day Massacre".

wassagstdu
02-15-2004, 03:47 PM
Move A-Rod to third in favor of the worst defensive shortstop in baseball? Give me a break. In a few days Jeter graciously volunteers to move to third.

beckett21
02-15-2004, 04:20 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4268888/

Looks like Soriano and player to be named later; just needs Bud's blessing...

gosox41
02-15-2004, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Actually, it was me who said that. The point was not that it's luck that they developed those 3 guys, but that there is a big element of luck involved in having them come up at the same time (i.e. they're all cheap at the same time). In fact, over the past few years, as they've tied those guys up, theyve had more and more trouble because they can't put better teams around them.

The message for the Sox (and other teams) is that you need to be that much better at player development, but you also need some luck to have guys pan out together, before they get to expensive.

So if the A's got lucky having 3 young pitcher's come up at onve, is it fair to assume that the White Sox were unluck with all those torn labrums?

Bob

idseer
02-15-2004, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
You don't have to take me seriously, but I'm not sure how many people will take you seriously if you say it doesn't matter if the Sox win the World Series, because they still won't be considered the best team. That just seems illogical. I don't think anyone is going to tell a Marlins fan," Hey whatever World Champs, you weren't even the best team, lol." Whatever though, if you want to be upset about it, go ahead, but I'm sure more than a few agree with that sentiment.

who's upset?
i'm just suggesting you completely missed the gist of my post, then put words into my mouth to make your reply to.

if you don't understand a post either ask for clarification or say nothing. sound about right?

SEALgep
02-15-2004, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by idseer
who's upset?
i'm just suggesting you completely missed the gist of my post, then put words into my mouth to make your reply to.

if you don't understand a post either ask for clarification or say nothing. sound about right? My posts were questions, and you told me I put words in your mouth. Anyway, I have one question for you that can put all this unneccessary crap to rest. Would you rather have a Sox team considered the best by all and have them underacheive without a WS title, or a Sox team considered to be poor, but overacheived with a WS title?

RedPinStripes
02-15-2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
Somewhere Peter Gammons is getting fitted for a straitjacket. :)

LOL!

idseer
02-15-2004, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
My posts were questions, and you told me I put words in your mouth. Anyway, I have one question for you that can put all this unneccessary crap to rest. Would you rather have a Sox team considered the best by all and have them underacheive without a WS title, or a Sox team considered to be poor, but overacheived with a WS title?


ahh yes .. your posts were questions. your first question was .... <"are you serious?" > followed by:

<"Do you think the Marlins or their fans could care a less if they are considered the best. How is that the most important thing. If we won it all, how could anyone even say, "Well that's great, but you weren't the best." I would laugh intheir face. The best you say, whatever, we're world series champs. If you're the best, you sure have a terrible way of showing it.">

as for words in my mouth i point to:

<"Didn't you say winning isn't important, only the appearance of being the best team is?">

don't try to pass this off as a question. i wrote it clearly and all you had to do was reread it. no ... this was, 'putting words in my mouth'.

you have to learn that when you say something in here PEOPLE CAN REREAD IT!
i said it before and i'll say it again ... if you don't understand a post, ask for clarification or ignore it. but don't try to change facts.


now, as to your better question ...

my first choice would be that the sox WERE the best team AND won the w.s.

my 2nd choice would be to win the series due to injuries to a better team or just being hot at the right time (check out the 1960 pittsburgh pirates).

my 3rd choice would be to have the definitively best team but lose because of injuries or dumb luck (check out the 1960 new york yankees).

unfortunately ... i'm a white sox fan.

A. Cavatica
02-15-2004, 08:35 PM
Perhaps the Yankees will move him on to Boston for Bill Mueller.

SEALgep
02-15-2004, 09:06 PM
[i]idseer

now, as to your better question ...

my first choice would be that the sox WERE the best team AND won the w.s.

my 2nd choice would be to win the series due to injuries to a better team or just being hot at the right time (check out the 1960 pittsburgh pirates).

my 3rd choice would be to have the definitively best team but lose because of injuries or dumb luck (check out the 1960 new york yankees).

unfortunately ... i'm a white sox fan. [/B] Well at least your thinking more rationally now.

Lip Man 1
02-15-2004, 09:57 PM
Rash....obviously you ignored Daver's point earlier in this thread. Allow me to repost it for you.

"No,MLB brought up the issue of the salary cap,not all the owners were in agreement with it.The same goes for a salary floor.The revenue sharing deal was killed by the owners before it ever came to the players."

Lip

rahulsekhar
02-15-2004, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rash....obviously you ignored Daver's point earlier in this thread. Allow me to repost it for you.

"No,MLB brought up the issue of the salary cap,not all the owners were in agreement with it.The same goes for a salary floor.The revenue sharing deal was killed by the owners before it ever came to the players."

Lip

I specifically remember Don Fehr coming out against both with arguments like (and I'm paraphrasing) "why should a team that is exceptional at local promotion be penalized by that level of revenue sharing" and "we believe in a free market where teams can spend as they choose" (used against the salary floor).

I'd be curious to see Daver's evidence for that, because I specifically remember reading articles, press releases, etc saying exactly the opposite.

Daver
02-15-2004, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar

I'd be curious to see Daver's evidence for that, because I specifically remember reading articles, press releases, etc saying exactly the opposite.

George Steinbrennar was opposed to a salary cap,and he stuck to his guns by being the only owner that voted against the current CBA agreement,and is still looking into the possibility of filing suit against MLB for the current system.

Jeffrey Loria,David Glass,Carl Pohlad,and the owner of the Padres,whose name escapes me at the moment,all were vehemetly against a salary floor,and there were a few owners that leaned that way but would not commit,Jerry Reinsdorf being one of them.

rahulsekhar
02-15-2004, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rash....obviously you ignored Daver's point earlier in this thread. Allow me to repost it for you.

"No,MLB brought up the issue of the salary cap,not all the owners were in agreement with it.The same goes for a salary floor.The revenue sharing deal was killed by the owners before it ever came to the players."

Lip

OK - per this article (I can't vouch for it, found it on a google search, but it is from the Government Bureau of Labor).

"On revenue sharing, he (Selig) proposed that teams place 50% of their locally generated revenues, after deductions for ballpark expenses, into a pool that would then be distributed equally to all teams."

"On February 13, 2002, the union rejected.......Only a small change (to 22%) was offered on revenue sharing"

I stand corrected in the #s, but the spirit is still the same. Owners proposed 50% revenue sharing and players rejected it (by way of offering an increase from 20% to 22%).

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/12/art2full.pdf

That's my 5 min of research. I am honestly interested conflicting evidence since I don't remember any. In fact I can't remember the players making ANY suggestions to help improve the economic state of the game.

rahulsekhar
02-15-2004, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Daver
George Steinbrennar was opposed to a salary cap,and he stuck to his guns by being the only owner that voted against the current CBA agreement,and is still looking into the possibility of filing suit against MLB for the current system.

Jeffrey Loria,David Glass,Carl Pohlad,and the owner of the Padres,whose name escapes me at the moment,all were vehemetly against a salary floor,and there were a few owners that leaned that way but would not commit,Jerry Reinsdorf being one of them.

Despite that, Selig was able to get enough support to make it part of an official proposal to the MLBPA.

Daver
02-15-2004, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Despite that, Selig was able to get enough support to make it part of an official proposal to the MLBPA.

And he also opened the door to the mess that will ensue in 2006.


The MLBPA is already searching for grounds to file a collusion suit,which I doubt they will find,but they will use it to dig in and fight back all of the concessions they made in good faith in the last agreement.

I would not be surprised if you don't see a bunch of franchises on the market in the next year or so,the trend has already begun with the Dodgers and the Angels changing ownership.

rahulsekhar
02-15-2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Daver
And he also opened the door to the mess that will ensue in 2006.


The MLBPA is already searching for grounds to file a collusion suit,which I doubt they will find,but they will use it to dig in and fight back all of the concessions they made in good faith in the last agreement.

I would not be surprised if you don't see a bunch of franchises on the market in the next year or so,the trend has already begun with the Dodgers and the Angels changing ownership.

I still don't see the "good faith". What the players agreed to were weak, marginal changes at best, and nothing that addressed the root problems of economic disparity. There are 2 paths to solving them - cost control and revenue sharing. The players rejected meaningful attempts at both and did not propose any alternatives.

As I've said, I can point to specific things that would have improved the economic situation that were proposed by the owners. What has the MLBPA proposed? That teams spend as they see fit. That's what's happening now.

rahulsekhar
02-15-2004, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by Daver
And he also opened the door to the mess that will ensue in 2006.



I also fail to see how that's Selig's fault and not Fehr/Orza.

Bud's done a lot of questionable things, but in the negotiations, he did what was in his power to do - bring the owners around on meaningful proposals. He couldn't force them through the players. The responses they got back were meaningless, leaving him a choice of accepting a bad deal or prolonging a work stoppage. If your argument is that he should have done the latter, then I can see your point. But I don't think that's what you're trying to say.

Daver
02-15-2004, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
I also fail to see how that's Selig's fault and not Fehr/Orza.

Fehr is at fault for using the system that was granted to the MLBPA by way of the courts,as well as the NLRB?

I think you need to look into your history on baseball labor disputes,this falls directly into the lap of the owners for past trangressions.

rahulsekhar
02-15-2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Fehr is at fault for using the system that was granted to the MLBPA by way of the courts,as well as the NLRB?

Similarly, are the owners at fault for using the only system the players would let them put in place? If the system allows it, why shouldn't Steinbrenner spend as much as he wants? And if a lesser team has a choice between break-even or losing money and still having a long shot at it meaning anything, why shouldn't they focus on developing young players and hope to have a number hit at once to make them contenders?

I think you need to look into your history on baseball labor disputes,this falls directly into the lap of the owners for past trangressions.

I know the history and I agree that the owners have made serious mistakes. However, those cannot be undone. All that can happen now is for BOTH sides to try and do something to fix the game moving forward. I see the owners making many more significant attempts to do so than the players.

Given the situation that we have today, what would YOU have the owners do? IMO - the base thing that needs to happen is increased revenue sharing (which has the effect of taking $$$ away from guys ike Steinbrenner and thereby limiting his ability to have a payroll 2-4 times higher than the average). As I noted - that was rejected by the MLBPA, the owners were willing to commit to a significant increase.

Daver
02-16-2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Similarly, are the owners at fault for using the only system the players would let them put in place? If the system allows it, why shouldn't Steinbrenner spend as much as he wants? And if a lesser team has a choice between break-even or losing money and still having a long shot at it meaning anything, why shouldn't they focus on developing young players and hope to have a number hit at once to make them contenders?



I know the history and I agree that the owners have made serious mistakes. However, those cannot be undone. All that can happen now is for BOTH sides to try and do something to fix the game moving forward. I see the owners making many more significant attempts to do so than the players.

Given the situation that we have today, what would YOU have the owners do? IMO - the base thing that needs to happen is increased revenue sharing (which has the effect of taking $$$ away from guys ike Steinbrenner and thereby limiting his ability to have a payroll 2-4 times higher than the average). As I noted - that was rejected by the MLBPA, the owners were willing to commit to a significant increase.

The owners have an out,it is called collecting the net gains on their investment and selling,Charles Finley was bright enough to do this as soon as FA was established,he saw the writing on the wall when the owners insisted on arbitration as opposed to outright free agency.

The main problem will still continue to be the fact that the owners,behind Bud Selig,want to control revenue sharing through the commisioners office,while never revealing what the books say,and it is well known that the MLBPA has absolutely no faith in MLB in any area that concerns finances.I have to agree with the MLBPA on this,for a few simple reasons,why does Bud Selig have a fund of over ten million dollars to dispose of as he sees fit?What are the criteria for a franchise to qualify for some of that fund?What are the parameters that are used for the funding of a team that is owned by MLB itself?Who decides where the revenue sharing money for the Montreal Expos goes?

I can break it down even further,Why did Bud see fit to do away with the AL and NL presidents positions?Why did Bud see fit to fire Bob Dupay from his position as VP in charge of player relations?Why did Bud replace him with his personal attorney?

It all comes down to trust,and the MLBPA knows a snake when they see one.

Lip Man 1
02-16-2004, 12:23 AM
For what it's worth:

I do recall Steinbrenner saying that he'd be for revenue sharing as soon as Montreal opened their books to him and proved that the money he'd be giving would be going towards improving the franchise on the field and not going to the (then) owner's pockets.

and I also have on tape from the PBS Documentary, Frontline : The Trouble With Baseball which aired the night before Opening Day 1993, a conversation between Sox co-owner Eddie Einhorn and Jack Sands, player agent (for Carlton Fisk) among others. Einhorn strongly denounced revenue sharing. Saying that he and Jerry bought the Chicago market, not the Pittsburgh or Cincinnati market and they are entitled to keep what they get. He also said that he opposed giving money to teams who'd use that money to perhaps beat the Sox because of players gained from it.

I can provide a copy of it if you wish.

Lip

idseer
02-16-2004, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
For what it's worth:

I do recall Steinbrenner saying that he'd be for revenue sharing as soon as Montreal opened their books to him and proved that the money he'd be giving would be going towards improving the franchise on the field and not going to the (then) owner's pockets.

and I also have on tape from the PBS Documentary, Frontline : The Trouble With Baseball which aired the night before Opening Day 1993, a conversation between Sox co-owner Eddie Einhorn and Jack Sands, player agent (for Carlton Fisk) among others. Einhorn strongly denounced revenue sharing. Saying that he and Jerry bought the Chicago market, not the Pittsburgh or Cincinnati market and they are entitled to keep what they get. He also said that he opposed giving money to teams who'd use that money to perhaps beat the Sox because of players gained from it.

I can provide a copy of it if you wish.

Lip

that's pretty ironic, isn't it?
new york says 'we want them to use the money to make a better team ... and chicago says 'we don't want them to use the money to make a better team'!
nothing like being on the same page.

is anyone surprised there can be no progress?

poorme
02-16-2004, 09:36 AM
Ironic they bought the Chicago market and act like they're in Pittsburgh.

rahulsekhar
02-16-2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Daver
The owners have an out,it is called collecting the net gains on their investment and selling,Charles Finley was bright enough to do this as soon as FA was established,he saw the writing on the wall when the owners insisted on arbitration as opposed to outright free agency.

That doesn't solve the underlying problem of economic disparity where 1 team can be quite profitable witha payroll higher than the net worth of a number of others (per Forbes - that has a number of teams at or around the 200m mark. And Forbes isn't an owner's mouthpiece, quite the opposite). Which is a big piece of why you often have new owners that come in wanting to make a big splash and willing to spend to do it, then a few years later they're making the same cost cutting moves as everyone else (ala Tom Hicks).

In fact, your note on Finley would support my argument that the underlying economic structure is not workable (or a "bright" guy like Finley might have stuck around).

The main problem will still continue to be the fact that the owners,behind Bud Selig,want to control revenue sharing through the commisioners office,while never revealing what the books say,and it is well known that the MLBPA has absolutely no faith in MLB in any area that concerns finances.I have to agree with the MLBPA on this,for a few simple reasons,why does Bud Selig have a fund of over ten million dollars to dispose of as he sees fit?What are the criteria for a franchise to qualify for some of that fund?What are the parameters that are used for the funding of a team that is owned by MLB itself?Who decides where the revenue sharing money for the Montreal Expos goes?

Hey - I agree with you 100% that revenue sharing needs to be accompanied by some independent financial oversight. The problem is that never even made it to the bargaining table because the MLBPA doesn't want the base revenue sharing. It would have been quite simple for them to say "OK, we accept the concept of increased revenue sharing but only if overseen by independent, mutually selected auditors". That then becomes the negotiating point. But that was never raised by Fehr as an objection. His objection is to the revenue sharing itself - because anything that takes away form the Yanks ability to offer/trade for huge contracts acts as a drag on salaries and regardless of what it might do for the game, that's not what he's interested in.


It all comes down to trust,and the MLBPA knows a snake when they see one.

Sure - the owners are snakes, unfortunately so are the players/union. All I'm saying is that in recent years the owners have opened the door for meaningful changes, but rather than exploring that opportunity, the players have slammed that door. Getting back to the original post, I fail to see how that's in any way "good faith".

I'll ask you again - since you apparently don't think that the players should agree to any changes in the system - what would you like the owners to do to fix things? I do not believe that they can do it on their own due to the collective bargaining process. And I do not believe that the players have any interest at all in changing the current system.

doublem23
02-16-2004, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

BUT THERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS!

This permanently puts to bed any delusional thinking on the part of some Sox fans that this year's club can 'luck' past BOTH the Red Sox and Yankees to get to the World Series.

That insanity has been buried.


Yeah, those Marlins sure were favorites last year.

:whoflungpoo

poorme
02-16-2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
Yeah, those Marlins sure were favorites last year.


Unfortunately we don't have a Josh Beckett or anything that even looks like Josh Beckett.

rahulsekhar
02-16-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by poorme
Unfortunately we don't have a Josh Beckett or anything that even looks like Josh Beckett.

Beckett21, you're the closest thing we got - suit up!

CubKilla
02-16-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by poorme
Unfortunately we don't have a Josh Beckett or anything that even looks like Josh Beckett.

Or a 2B, or a lead-off hitter, or a CF.....

doublem23
02-16-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by poorme
Unfortunately we don't have a Josh Beckett or anything that even looks like Josh Beckett.

You're talking about the same guy who put up a 6-7 record in 2002 with 107 IP and a 4.10 ERA, right?

I'm not saying it will happen and I'm 99.999999999999999% sure that it won't, but what fun is sports if you automatically disqualify yourself from the very start?

A. Cavatica
02-16-2004, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Unfortunately we don't have a Josh Beckett or anything that even looks like Josh Beckett.

Yes, but we have the Marlins' secret weapon, the man who singlehandedly coached them to the championship.

voodoochile
02-16-2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by A. Cavatica
Yes, but we have the Marlins' secret weapon, the man who singlehandedly coached them to the championship.

Again?

Daver
02-16-2004, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar


I'll ask you again - since you apparently don't think that the players should agree to any changes in the system - what would you like the owners to do to fix things? I do not believe that they can do it on their own due to the collective bargaining process. And I do not believe that the players have any interest at all in changing the current system.

I beleive that the players union has a lot of interest in changing the current system,and will fight to change it.

Their first thing will be to rescind all the changes allowed in the last CBA concerning the luxury tax and revenue sharing,since it has already proven to do nothing to even out competetive balance,all it has done is given the owners an excuse to tighten payroll across the board.

MLB and the MLBPA will never make any progress as long as Bud Selig remains in control,for the simple fact that no one trusts him,including a good percentage of the other owners.

rahulsekhar
02-16-2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I beleive that the players union has a lot of interest in changing the current system,and will fight to change it.

Their first thing will be to rescind all the changes allowed in the last CBA concerning the luxury tax and revenue sharing,since it has already proven to do nothing to even out competetive balance,all it has done is given the owners an excuse to tighten payroll across the board.

MLB and the MLBPA will never make any progress as long as Bud Selig remains in control,for the simple fact that no one trusts him,including a good percentage of the other owners.

I'm still curious what specifically you'd like to see changed?

Daver
02-16-2004, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
I'm still curious what specifically you'd like to see changed?

An autonomous commisioner for a start.

Having an owner as the commisioner of the league does nothing but breed mistrust.

rahulsekhar
02-16-2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Daver
An autonomous commisioner for a start.

Having an owner as the commisioner of the league does nothing but breed mistrust.

OK, having an autonomous commissioner is good....but does nothing to change the system. What changes would you lik to see in the economic system in baseball to improve competitive balance?

Or do you think that everything's OK as is if you have an autonomous commissioner?

Daver
02-16-2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
OK, having an autonomous commissioner is good....but does nothing to change the system. What changes would you lik to see in the economic system in baseball to improve competitive balance?

Or do you think that everything's OK as is if you have an autonomous commissioner?

The system is not broke,it worked just fine for thirty years.

Get an autonomous commisioner,my first choice would be Jessie Ventura.Let him arbitrate a true bargaining session between the players and the owners,without a bias for one side or the other,and you would see a lot of changes.

The biggest problem in the game right now is trust,the MLBPA does not trust the owners,for very good reason,and having an owner as commisioner has done even more damage to the mistrust there, removing the root of the problem is the first step in solving the inequities of the game.

rahulsekhar
02-16-2004, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The system is not broke,it worked just fine for thirty years.

Get an autonomous commisioner,my first choice would be Jessie Ventura.Let him arbitrate a true bargaining session between the players and the owners,without a bias for one side or the other,and you would see a lot of changes.

The biggest problem in the game right now is trust,the MLBPA does not trust the owners,for very good reason,and having an owner as commisioner has done even more damage to the mistrust there, removing the root of the problem is the first step in solving the inequities of the game.

OK, so just so that I understand, there are no major changes that you'd make to the baseball economic system since it "worked just fine for 30 years"?

Yet....there are "inequities" in the game?

C'mon - don't be evasive, I'm honestly curious in what you think the "inequities" are and how you'd recommend addressing them. The trust thing is a good baseline, but is only a prerequisite to addressing the inequities. Let's say we create a new position of "Baseball czar" with the power to compel both the union and the owners.....what do you do?

Here's mine - I think the core problem is the increasing disparity in revenues. I believe that significantly increasing sharing of local revenues (along with independent oversight to prevent financial shenanigans) will address most if not all of what I see as the inequities. Sharing a significant portion of revenues puts the teams on a much more even resource base and enables better competition for talent. It will also provide a natural drag on salaries (although that's not as critical if teams have somewhat even resource bases to operate with).

Daver
02-16-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar


Here's mine - I think the core problem is the increasing disparity in revenues. I believe that significantly increasing sharing of local revenues (along with independent oversight to prevent financial shenanigans) will address most if not all of what I see as the inequities. Sharing a significant portion of revenues puts the teams on a much more even resource base and enables better competition for talent. It will also provide a natural drag on salaries (although that's not as critical if teams have somewhat even resource bases to operate with).

Unless you are going to get all the teams to open the books you will never know what the inequites are.

Revenue sharing could be an option,but what revenue are they sharing that they do not share already,and for that matter how is this money distributed? The commisioner has sole judge of how it is done now.

The perceived inequites really come from one team,so why not just move the Expos to NYC and cut the market share?

rahulsekhar
02-16-2004, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Unless you are going to get all the teams to open the books you will never know what the inequites are.

Revenue sharing could be an option,but what revenue are they sharing that they do not share already,and for that matter how is this money distributed? The commisioner has sole judge of how it is done now.

Revenue sharing is I believe at 22-24%. It has traditionally been 20%. Increasing that # to more on the order of 75%. I agree that opening the books is a prerequisite, but merely opening them does nothing to change the act that the big money teams can spend a lot more than the small market teams


The perceived inequites really come from one team,so why not just move the Expos to NYC and cut the market share?

I disagree with this. The Red Sox are another example. I do not believe that the Royals or Brewers have anywhere near the resources that they do. I would guess the Cubs as well are operating with probably 2x the revenues of small market teams (even those like the Royals that are doing what they can to compete). It's a simple matter of where they're located and the fan base they have access to. That's why I believe revenue sharing is the key.

Daver
02-16-2004, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Revenue sharing is I believe at 22-24%. It has traditionally been 20%. Increasing that # to more on the order of 75%. I agree that opening the books is a prerequisite, but merely opening them does nothing to change the act that the big money teams can spend a lot more than the small market teams



I disagree with this. The Red Sox are another example. I do not believe that the Royals or Brewers have anywhere near the resources that they do. I would guess the Cubs as well are operating with probably 2x the revenues of small market teams (even those like the Royals that are doing what they can to compete). It's a simple matter of where they're located and the fan base they have access to. That's why I believe revenue sharing is the key.

Percentages mean nothing to me,all numbers can be made to lie,just ask an accountant for an MLB team.

The Red Sox play in the smallest ballpark in MLB,yet can command twice the ticket price of the White Sox because they are aggressive with their payroll and do a good job of marketing their team.The White Sox have a sweetheart lease deal,a better than average media revenue that is about to double,and do a rotten job of marketing their team and refuse to invest in payroll,so the park sits half empty.

How is revenuing sharing going to correct this?

rahulsekhar
02-16-2004, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Percentages mean nothing to me,all numbers can be made to lie,just ask an accountant for an MLB team.

The Red Sox play in the smallest ballpark in MLB,yet can command twice the ticket price of the White Sox because they are aggressive with their payroll and do a good job of marketing their team.The White Sox have a sweetheart lease deal,a better than average media revenue that is about to double,and do a rotten job of marketing their team and refuse to invest in payroll,so the park sits half empty.

How is revenuing sharing going to correct this?

The Red Sox also have a significantly greater area for a fan base, and I believe a better media deal. Also - I would not classify the White Sox as one of the teams in need of revenue sharing to compete. The Sox have other issues, but it's not due to lack of a market.

I do believe that the Royals, Brewers, Pirates, and a number of other teams can not effectively compete with the Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs from a revenue perspective.

If you don't believe the underlying assumption that there is a significant disparity in revenues between the large market and small market teams, then I can see why you don't think the problem's the same as I do. I simply do not believe that if all owners devoted all available baseball resources to salaries that things would change much. The Yankees would still have 4x (or something large) as the Brewers. The BoSox would still have 2-3x and so on. So there are 2 problems here 1)owners need to operate teams as a roughly break-even venture in the long term (i.e. run in the red for a short time if necessary, but with an eye towards increasing revenues long term to balance it out). 2)Even if they do that, the revenue disparity needs to be addressed. The specific dollars of how much revenue each team brings in is irrelevant to this concept. The rough ratio of large to small market teams is the key. If the Pirates make 100mil and the Yanks 400mil the result from a competitive standpoint is the same as if the Pirates make 25mil and the Yanks 100mil.

Until that disparity in available resources is addressed, I do not believe you will have anything close to competitive balance.

(and no - for the record, I do not believe there is competitive balance today.)

Daver
02-16-2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
The Red Sox also have a significantly greater area for a fan base, and I believe a better media deal. Also - I would not classify the White Sox as one of the teams in need of revenue sharing to compete. The Sox have other issues, but it's not due to lack of a market.

I do believe that the Royals, Brewers, Pirates, and a number of other teams can not effectively compete with the Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs from a revenue perspective.

If you don't believe the underlying assumption that there is a significant disparity in revenues between the large market and small market teams, then I can see why you don't think the problem's the same as I do. I simply do not believe that if all owners devoted all available baseball resources to salaries that things would change much. The Yankees would still have 4x (or something large) as the Brewers. The BoSox would still have 2-3x and so on. So there are 2 problems here 1)owners need to operate teams as a roughly break-even venture in the long term (i.e. run in the red for a short time if necessary, but with an eye towards increasing revenues long term to balance it out). 2)Even if they do that, the revenue disparity needs to be addressed. The specific dollars of how much revenue each team brings in is irrelevant to this concept. The rough ratio of large to small market teams is the key. If the Pirates make 100mil and the Yanks 400mil the result from a competitive standpoint is the same as if the Pirates make 25mil and the Yanks 100mil.

Until that disparity in available resources is addressed, I do not believe you will have anything close to competitive balance.

(and no - for the record, I do not believe there is competitive balance today.)


Move the Expos to NYC.

The Twins have a far larger market than the White Sox,the Sox are one of three teams within 90 miles of each other,whereas the Twins are the only team within a roughly 400 square mile area.

Penalizing teams for marketing their product well is not a very viable way to build an economic base,all it does is encourage teams to continue to not market or improve their product.

rahulsekhar
02-16-2004, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Move the Expos to NYC.

The Twins have a far larger market than the White Sox,the Sox are one of three teams within 90 miles of each other,whereas the Twins are the only team within a roughly 400 square mile area.

Penalizing teams for marketing their product well is not a very viable way to build an economic base,all it does is encourage teams to continue to not market or improve their product.

I disagree - it doesn't seem to hurt the NFL in terms of teams marketing or improving their products.

The key metric is eyeballs within the team's area (since media drives most of the revenue disparity). Boston - with claim to New England is significantly more populous than Minnesota. I would guess Chicago (even if split betwen Sox & Cubs) is similarly larger - and as I said, revenue sharing is not the Sox problem.

Daver
02-16-2004, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
I disagree - it doesn't seem to hurt the NFL in terms of teams marketing or improving their products.



The NFL,unlike any other sport,shares ALL revenue not generated from the stadium itself,from merchandise to TV and radio revenue.That being said,NFL teams play sixteen regular season games,as opposed to 162,and the league itself does most of their marketing for them.Baseball does not have that luxury.

Market size is what you want to make it,but proximity to the product plays a huge role,and Minnesota draws fans from four states,because they are the only game that is close to them.This is the same marketing the NFL uses,but they do it in a much better way.

Again I ask,why should the teams that market their product well be penalized for those that show no interest in doing the same thing?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-16-2004, 10:39 PM
Revenue sharing makes it possible for small-time owners to keep their teams. Don't be fooled into thinking it makes the league more competitive. It doesn't. For proof just ask any fan of Bidwell's Arizona Cardinals (nee St. Louis Cardinals, nee Chicago Cardinals). They are a charter franchise of the NFL and they have *never* won a championship.

There is no way a sad sack owner like Bill Bidwell could hold onto his franchise for 70+ years if he wasn't getting a hand-out from all the other NFL owners. Meanwhile the team's fans suffer interminably because the man simply doesn't give a ****, just like his father before him.

The NFL is the most socialist of any of the leagues. I could cite countless other examples of sad sacks from other leagues too, but I'm only mentioning the Bidwells as the most obvious example of why revenue-sharing does not solve competitive balance.

Read these backwards. :smile:

ztriW

yeksaCcM

frodsnieR

kempsted
02-16-2004, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by DSpivack
[B]On one hand, the last two/three World Series have lent evidence to the argument that 'salary doesn't matter'- Arizona [to some extent] Anaheim and Florida haven't exactly had super-high payrolls.
]

To no extent Arizona. That was the year people were calling them the DimondBucks because they spent so much. Even Anaheim is somewhat of a stretch because they were more like the Cubs - they spent they just sucked most of the time.

gosox41
02-17-2004, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Percentages mean nothing to me,all numbers can be made to lie,just ask an accountant for an MLB team.

The Red Sox play in the smallest ballpark in MLB,yet can command twice the ticket price of the White Sox because they are aggressive with their payroll and do a good job of marketing their team.The White Sox have a sweetheart lease deal,a better than average media revenue that is about to double,and do a rotten job of marketing their team and refuse to invest in payroll,so the park sits half empty.

How is revenuing sharing going to correct this?

If one can make percentages be anything one wants them to be then how do you know the Sox new media contract is going to double in value? I thought percentages mean nothing to you?

And while I wish the White Sox were run like the Red Sox, I'd love to see fans here complain if they had to pay Red Sox prices for equivalent seats at Fenway to see a team with a $110 mill payroll.

If ticket prices are based on supply/demand of the product and the product averages just over 50% capacity now, do you think raising the payroll $45 mill create such a demand for tickets that they can charge Red Sox prices? Because as we all know, ticket prices may be determined one way, but the fact is taht revenues from ticket prices does go to help fund a payroll.

Bob

rahulsekhar
02-17-2004, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Revenue sharing makes it possible for small-time owners to keep their teams. Don't be fooled into thinking it makes the league more competitive. It doesn't. For proof just ask any fan of Bidwell's Arizona Cardinals (nee St. Louis Cardinals, nee Chicago Cardinals). They are a charter franchise of the NFL and they have *never* won a championship.

There is no way a sad sack owner like Bill Bidwell could hold onto his franchise for 70+ years if he wasn't getting a hand-out from all the other NFL owners. Meanwhile the team's fans suffer interminably because the man simply doesn't give a ****, just like his father before him.

The NFL is the most socialist of any of the leagues. I could cite countless other examples of sad sacks from other leagues too, but I'm only mentioning the Bidwells as the most obvious example of why revenue-sharing does not solve competitive balance.

Read these backwards. :smile:

ztriW

yeksaCcM

frodsnieR

Don't misunderstand me - revenue sharing does not automatically make teams competitive: it gives teams the ability to be competitive. You can mismanage a team as easily with revenue sharing as without. What revenue sharing does is make management of a team critical to it's success. For example: The Yanks can afford to miss on huge contracts, but 1 mistake by a small market team and they're effectively out of it because they can't make any more moves. Equalizing the revenue base will create a greater linkage between team management and performance, which is good.

rahulsekhar
02-17-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Daver
The NFL,unlike any other sport,shares ALL revenue not generated from the stadium itself,from merchandise to TV and radio revenue.That being said,NFL teams play sixteen regular season games,as opposed to 162,and the league itself does most of their marketing for them.Baseball does not have that luxury.

Which is why I advocate significant increases in revenue sharing minus "reasonable" expenses. I think sharing of ALL revenue would be ideal, but in baseball would be difficult, but the concept is still valid. Pool more revenue than you do now to even the playing field across markets.


Market size is what you want to make it,but proximity to the product plays a huge role,and Minnesota draws fans from four states,because they are the only game that is close to them.This is the same marketing the NFL uses,but they do it in a much better way.

True, but the problem is that in small markets, even if they sell out consistently, the disparity in media revenues dwarfs the relative equality of ticket sales. Today's Trib had an interesting article on the Yanks revenues. They had estimates of $100M from ticket sales and total revenues of 250-330. Small markets may be able to match the ticket sales portion, but there is no way they can make up the disparity in other areas. Therefore they will always be at a competetive disadvantage


Again I ask,why should the teams that market their product well be penalized for those that show no interest in doing the same thing?
Quite simply because they are not only marketing their own team, they are marketing their sport. To put it bluntly, if the opponents dont' show up, they have nothing to market (except intrasquad games). The increasing divide between haves & have-nots is creating a similar scenario. How long do you think fans would show up to see the Yanks or BoSox play a local college team? Is there that much difference between that and having the Yanks All-stars play the Brewers?

Daver
02-17-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
If one can make percentages be anything one wants them to be then how do you know the Sox new media contract is going to double in value? I thought percentages mean nothing to you?

Because the Sox are about to start their own network,and cut out the middle man,I used double as a number,it could easily more than double.

[i]And while I wish the White Sox were run like the Red Sox, I'd love to see fans here complain if they had to pay Red Sox prices for equivalent seats at Fenway to see a team with a $110 mill payroll.

If ticket prices are based on supply/demand of the product and the product averages just over 50% capacity now, do you think raising the payroll $45 mill create such a demand for tickets that they can charge Red Sox prices? Because as we all know, ticket prices may be determined one way, but the fact is taht revenues from ticket prices does go to help fund a payroll.

Bob

The Red Sox have had the demand for tickets before they upped their payroll,by marketing their product well and creating the demand for tickets,and they are smart enough to realize that fielding a competitive team only helps keep that demand at a high level.They built the fanbase before they upped the payroll.

Daver
02-17-2004, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar



True, but the problem is that in small markets, even if they sell out consistently, the disparity in media revenues dwarfs the relative equality of ticket sales. Today's Trib had an interesting article on the Yanks revenues. They had estimates of $100M from ticket sales and total revenues of 250-330. Small markets may be able to match the ticket sales portion, but there is no way they can make up the disparity in other areas. Therefore they will always be at a competetive disadvantage


And you have seen these revenue numbers to know that they are true?

rahulsekhar
02-17-2004, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Daver
And you have seen these revenue numbers to know that they are true?

No, but I don't think one needs to see the actual number to know that the media rights for a team in NY dwarf those for a team in MN. I guess if you don't believe there is any revenue disparity, then there really isn't a systemic problem.

Paulwny
02-17-2004, 06:31 PM
I'm not going to look for a post that's a couple yrs. old, but I did post, I think with a link, that the yankmees radio revenue was greater then KC's TV revenue.