PDA

View Full Version : Remember This


duke of dorwood
11-25-2001, 12:22 PM
A year ago, Texas gave Alex Rodriguez the biggest contract in history -- a 10-year, $252 million guarantee -- and Colorado made Mike Hampton the highest paid pitcher in history -- eight years, $121 million.

And this year, both teams are trying to regroup from last-place finishes.

Two years ago, Cincinnati General Manager Jim Bowden helped Ken Griffey Jr., engineer his trade from Seattle to the Reds, and gave Griffey a nine-year, $116.5 million contract. The Reds spent most of 2001 battling to avoid last place in the NL Central.

Two years after signing righthanded pitcher Kevin Brown to what was a record-setting six-year, $105 million deal, Los Angeles still hasn't played a postseason game.

:reinsy

Like my new column?

doublem23
11-25-2001, 10:05 PM
That's a dirty trick, duke! LOL! :)

Jerry_Manuel
11-25-2001, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
That's a dirty trick, duke! LOL!


I didn't get the Jerry column joke.

Nellie_Fox
11-25-2001, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
I didn't get the Jerry column joke.

Umm...Reinsdorf pointing out that hiring high priced free agents isn't always the answer?

LongDistanceFan
11-26-2001, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox


Umm...Reinsdorf pointing out that hiring high priced free agents isn't always the answer? i can see what he is saying, but add to those players a team that can compete and it will be different............ just like arz and curt schilling

Bmr31
11-26-2001, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
i can see what he is saying, but add to those players a team that can compete and it will be different............ just like arz and curt schilling

yeah no kidding. Like signing a great player is going to make you worse or something, lol. We all knew texas had no pitching and i think most of us knew, arod or not, they were going to SUCK.

czalgosz
11-26-2001, 12:20 AM
Most teams can't afford to pay for a high-priced free agent and keep good players around them. The Rangers will probably trade Ivan Rodriguez before the end of next season, and mark my words, the D-Backs will pull a Marlins and sell off their team to the highest bidder. This was a pure marketing play to draw fans, and they'll try to coast on their reputation. The Snakes will not be in the playoffs two years from now. Colangelo took a bath to pay for this years' team, he'll pay for that down the line.

I have to give Reinsdorf credit for standing his ground and not going after high-priced free agents. In the past five years, the Sox have picked up exactly two high-priced free agents - Albert Belle and Jaime Navarro. Neither one of those players did anything to help the team win, and in the end the Sox were unable to keep Robin Ventura because of it.

Would the Sox have been better this season if Arod was playing for them? Sure. But be prepared to see both Ordonez and Thomas gone over the next two seasons to help pay for him, and probably Mark Buehrle down the line, too.

With baseball, I'd much rather have 4 above-average players than one superstar. Just my opinion though, I could be wrong...

Bmr31
11-26-2001, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Most teams can't afford to pay for a high-priced free agent and keep good players around them. The Rangers will probably trade Ivan Rodriguez before the end of next season, and mark my words, the D-Backs will pull a Marlins and sell off their team to the highest bidder. This was a pure marketing play to draw fans, and they'll try to coast on their reputation. The Snakes will not be in the playoffs two years from now. Colangelo took a bath to pay for this years' team, he'll pay for that down the line.

I have to give Reinsdorf credit for standing his ground and not going after high-priced free agents. In the past five years, the Sox have picked up exactly two high-priced free agents - Albert Belle and Jaime Navarro. Neither one of those players did anything to help the team win, and in the end the Sox were unable to keep Robin Ventura because of it.

Would the Sox have been better this season if Arod was playing for them? Sure. But be prepared to see both Ordonez and Thomas gone over the next two seasons to help pay for him, and probably Mark Buehrle down the line, too.

With baseball, I'd much rather have 4 above-average players than one superstar. Just my opinion though, I could be wrong...

what you are saying may be true, if youre talking about being average or above average. However, to win a championship, in this day of baseball, you need to sign big dollar free agents. It puts you over the top. see NYY and see Ariz....

czalgosz
11-26-2001, 12:55 AM
Well, the Yankees are a special case. They have 10 times the resources of any other team, which gives them an enormous advantage from the get-go. It's really not fair to ask any other team to behave like them.

The Diamondbacks? Well, the strategy they tried worked for them, but it's a big gamble in this age of mutli-tiered playoffs. In essence, they rolled the dice on this season, signing a lot of pricey veterans knowing that they can't afford to keep the team together in the long run. I would gladly take a bunch of last-place finishes in exchange for one world series victory, but I wouldn't want the Sox to get an additional $30 Mill worth of veterans, win 100 games, get knocked out by the Yankees in the ALDS, and then finish in 4th in the AL central every year for 15 years after that. With the current playoff structure, anything can happen. The A's put the Yankees within one game of elimination in both '00 and '01. If Terrence Long had caught that fly ball in '00, or if the A's had been able to give Zito any run support in '01, we'd all be talking much differently about how to set up a ballclub. Personally, I'd much rather have a team that can get into the playoffs year after year than try to buy a championship. It can work (see the Marlins and the Snakes) but it can also bite you really hard in the long run.

Bmr31
11-26-2001, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Well, the Yankees are a special case. They have 10 times the resources of any other team, which gives them an enormous advantage from the get-go. It's really not fair to ask any other team to behave like them.

The Diamondbacks? Well, the strategy they tried worked for them, but it's a big gamble in this age of mutli-tiered playoffs. In essence, they rolled the dice on this season, signing a lot of pricey veterans knowing that they can't afford to keep the team together in the long run. I would gladly take a bunch of last-place finishes in exchange for one world series victory, but I wouldn't want the Sox to get an additional $30 Mill worth of veterans, win 100 games, get knocked out by the Yankees in the ALDS, and then finish in 4th in the AL central every year for 15 years after that. With the current playoff structure, anything can happen. The A's put the Yankees within one game of elimination in both '00 and '01. If Terrence Long had caught that fly ball in '00, or if the A's had been able to give Zito any run support in '01, we'd all be talking much differently about how to set up a ballclub. Personally, I'd much rather have a team that can get into the playoffs year after year than try to buy a championship. It can work (see the Marlins and the Snakes) but it can also bite you really hard in the long run.



i think you will find signing big time free agents, the only way to win a title for the next 10-15 years. Unless, of course, the install a salary cap.....

CLR01
11-26-2001, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31




i think you will find signing big time free agents, the only way to win a title for the next 10-15 years. Unless, of course, the install a salary cap.....


i dont think a salary cap will do that much to change the fact that you need to sign the big time free agents. It will make it easier to do because they wont be as expensive but it wont chage the fact that you still need the talent.

czalgosz
11-26-2001, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31




i think you will find signing big time free agents, the only way to win a title for the next 10-15 years. Unless, of course, the install a salary cap.....

Well, now you're getting into a whole new argument, and I won't get into that. But I do think if you have a good farm system and you make smart trades (see Oakland and Saint Louis and Seattle for some examples), you can win without signing big-name Free Agents.

I refuse to take playoff performance as an indication of how good a team is. Were the Yankees the best team in the AL this year? No, they were a distant third, they just had a combination of luck and experience and "mystique" or whatever you want to call it, to get them through the playoffs.

You can spend years developing talent and making shrewd transactions to build a quality franchise, or you can throw millions at the team to draw talent away from other franchises. Either way will get you into the playoffs. Once you get there, it makes no difference what you did to get there, anyone can win.

kermittheefrog
11-26-2001, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Well, now you're getting into a whole new argument, and I won't get into that. But I do think if you have a good farm system and you make smart trades (see Oakland and Saint Louis and Seattle for some examples), you can win without signing big-name Free Agents.

I refuse to take playoff performance as an indication of how good a team is. Were the Yankees the best team in the AL this year? No, they were a distant third, they just had a combination of luck and experience and "mystique" or whatever you want to call it, to get them through the playoffs.

You can spend years developing talent and making shrewd transactions to build a quality franchise, or you can throw millions at the team to draw talent away from other franchises. Either way will get you into the playoffs. Once you get there, it makes no difference what you did to get there, anyone can win.

I agree 100%. In fact that's pretty much what a lot of statheads scream at Bud Selig when he preaches his small markets can't comepte bull****. The A's can do it, the Twins were doing just fine until they traded Matt Lawton to add payroll in the the form of Rick Reed. I would say that Seattle isn't a good example though. They threw a lot of money into Ichiro. They had to payoff the Orix Blue Wave for him and then sign him to a major league deal. They also brought in Aaron Sele, John Olerud, Bret Boone, Jeff Nelson, Arthur Rhodes and Kazu Sasaki via the pay-for-play route. That's half an infield, one third of an outfield, a good starting pitcher and entire bullpen.

LongDistanceFan
11-26-2001, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


what you are saying may be true, if youre talking about being average or above average. However, to win a championship, in this day of baseball, you need to sign big dollar free agents. It puts you over the top. see NYY and see Ariz.... but wasn't this where you stated that you hate teams buying a championship???????????

LongDistanceFan
11-26-2001, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Well, now you're getting into a whole new argument, and I won't get into that. But I do think if you have a good farm system and you make smart trades (see Oakland and Saint Louis and Seattle for some examples), you can win without signing big-name Free Agents.

I refuse to take playoff performance as an indication of how good a team is. Were the Yankees the best team in the AL this year? ref oak,stl, and sea, how many world series rings did they win in the last 3 yrs or so.......... none. oak and sea has an abundance of talent on their farm.

when its done and in the books, no-one is going to remember how good or lucky you were during the playoff, only that 2 teams played and one came out the winner.

kermittheefrog
11-26-2001, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
ref oak,stl, and sea, how many world series rings did they win in the last 3 yrs or so.......... none. oak and sea has an abundance of talent on their farm.

when its done and in the books, no-one is going to remember how good or lucky you were during the playoff, only that 2 teams played and one came out the winner.

Is a World Series ring the only measure of success? If so than just think, if every team was 100% equal fans would only see their team be successful once every 3 decades.

I think you're oversimplifying things. Of course people are going to remember what happened during the playoffs. If everything came done to just who played and who won baseball would be really boring and no one would take the time to read about it's history because it wouldn't matter to anyone. Even casual fans want some personality to go along with what they saw. And you guys rip me for being too stat heavy and not giving credit to the game on the field, sheesh.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-26-2001, 10:26 AM
I think it's pretty obvious the most successful championship formula is to grow your own talent and fill the holes in your line up with the best free agents available at those positions. The Yankees are a classic example of this. Sure, they can afford to pay top-dollar for free agents, but the core of their team is homegrown.

Clearly the White Sox have developed a core of players who are capable of competing for a championship (just look at the 2000 division champs). Yes, the injuries hurt us, but I would submit (in my humble opinion) the biggest reason we failed to repeat was Kenny Williams failing to improve our team in its three weakest areas...

1. Catcher. We lost CJ and signed over-the-hill Sandy Alomar.

2. Center Field. Singleton sucked in 2000 and all KW did was give minor league bust Julio Ramirez an extended chance.

3. Third Base. Sox third base prospect-for-life Joe Crede still isn't considered a lock for the everyday position. Meanwhile KW has treaded water with Perry, Valentin and any other warm bodies he might find on the waiver wire.

If the Sox were serious about winning a championship, they would have fixed at least two of these problems last year. Instead KW went bargain-basement and it all blew up in his face. He's the luckiest man in the world too, because only the emergence of Buehrle and several other young pitchers saved the 2001 Sox from losing 85-90 games.

It's silly to suggest Colangelo's Diamondbacks were economically advantaged over Reinsdorf's Sox that Arizona could go out and "buy" the championship the Sox couldn't afford. That's just a load of Selig/Reinsdorf bull****.

We've been hearing the "next year is our year" crap for 84 years, people. The only ones believing the fairy tale are those morons on the North Side.

LongDistanceFan
11-26-2001, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Is a World Series ring the only measure of success? If so than just think, if every team was 100% equal fans would only see their team be successful once every 3 decades.

over-simplifying this........... no not really. i really don't see an owner, no matter how dumb, going into a season without a goal........... if winning a series ring not the goal, then why have the blasted thing in the first place or even the playoff.... come on now, i have always respected your opinion, but this post............. just think if every team etc......... lets not go to the what-if fantasy.......

ma-gaga
11-26-2001, 12:07 PM
The Yankees operate to win. With that "weak" of a team they almost did. It showed in the WS, that pitching rules supreme. It's a cliche, but you win with pitching. Somehow NYY beat Oakland. Somehow NYY beat Seattle. The pitchers for the yankees are a little better than the rest. BUT not as good as Schilling/Johnson.

:)

I am happy that someone FINALLY beat NY. But it kind of ticks me off that two expansion teams won the WS in the last 4 years. Anyways, the formula is to build your team through the draft, and fill in with free-agency. Tried and true methods.

Paulwny
11-26-2001, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I think it's pretty obvious the most successful championship formula is to grow your own talent and fill the holes in your line up with the best free agents available at those positions. The Yankees are a classic example of this. Sure, they can afford to pay top-dollar for free agents, but the core of their team is homegrown.





Disagreed when I read this section, sat down and tried to think it out before I went into a rant.
Granted NY has 2-3 core players from their minor leagues.
However, no other team over the last 5 yrs. has been able to obtain players who are in their prime yrs. NY's greatest ability is to trade their minor leagures for players about to enter free agency and because of money will not be retained by their present team. These players are then signed to long term contracts. They may nott have been fa's but, it's as close as it comes. Then they'll pick up some other high priced fa's to plug other holes.
With the exception of Pettite the yanks bought or traded for their starting pitchers. The vast majority of teams could not afford this staff, let alone the rest of this team.
Mattingly retires--- trade for Martinez
need a good lead off hitter--- trade for Knoblauch
need a left handed of--- trade for O'Neill
weak at third ----get Brosious
All of them still in their prime yrs. when acquired.
Most teams could not afford to sign all these players to long term contracts.
When they were all playing good the previous 5 yrs. the core of the team wasn't home grown. With many now past their prime the 2-3 are home grown until Giambi is at first.
If it weren't for Schillings desire never to be a yankee, guess who would be wearing the crowm?

kermittheefrog
11-26-2001, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
over-simplifying this........... no not really. i really don't see an owner, no matter how dumb, going into a season without a goal........... if winning a series ring not the goal, then why have the blasted thing in the first place or even the playoff.... come on now, i have always respected your opinion, but this post............. just think if every team etc......... lets not go to the what-if fantasy.......

Admittedly that's an oversimplified version of things but it's got some value. I'm not saying any owner should go into the season without a goal. And of course the ultimate goal is the World Sereis no matter who you are but many people treat anything less than that as a failure and that's silly. Anything can happen in a short series, it's tough for even the best team to win the World Series because of the luck involved in the playoffs. If your opponent's third starter throws the best game of his career in the division series that's a surprising setback that won't happen 99 out of 100 times.

LongDistanceFan
11-26-2001, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


man this is the last post i will post on this subject with you........... you are getting into fantasy. make up your mind you said that the main objective is the world series or is it not. does every team ultimate goal is to win the world series or not.... whereas in your first post you mention that the ring is not the goal to judge success............ if not then what is the goal................. the ring. end of story........

oldcomiskey
11-26-2001, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz

Personally, I'd much rather have a team that can get into the playoffs year after year than try to buy a championship. It can work (see the Marlins and the Snakes) but it can also bite you really hard in the long run.

I wouldnt--then we would be Atlanta and Cleveland--My Kongdom for a Sox championship---I dont wanna win the division---I dont wanna win the damn pennant year after year---just ONE world series for the Sox to win is all I ask

Daver
11-26-2001, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey


I wouldnt--then we would be Atlanta and Cleveland--My Kongdom for a Sox championship---I dont wanna win the division---I dont wanna win the damn pennant year after year---just ONE world series for the Sox to win is all I ask

I'm greedy,I want more than one.The foundation has already been laid for a contending team for a good stretch,why settle for one?

Jerry_Manuel
11-26-2001, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by daver
I'm greedy,I want more than one.The foundation has already been laid for a contending team for a good stretch,why settle for one?

Be greedy all you want the end result will be the same.

ZERO WORLD SERIES TITLES FOR THE SOX.