PDA

View Full Version : Hawk & DJ scoff at Pirates


Hangar18
04-17-2006, 11:28 AM
Did anyone catch this yesterday? During the game right before the rain delay, DJ was reading scores and he says "Guess who hit another homerun?"
and Hawk responds "hmmm, Shelton?". "You are right partner" said DJ.
Hawk could be overheard saying wow or something like that. after a minute, DJ than says "not bad for a Rule 5 pick, Shelton originally with the Pittsburgh Pirates", Hawk in the background then snickers a little bit.
A second or so of silence, and then DJ says "you know, its amazing, that there are some franchises out there, who have been historically really bad, just alot of bad luck, really scuffling, yet theyve had some very good players go right thru their franchise" Hawk then sarcastically laughs again
in the background, and I of course started to laugh myself ..............
I knew exactly what Hawk was doing. He of course was being pretty diplomatic, but essentially was saying what ive been saying all these years. the Pittsburgh Pirates are a JOKE.

ondafarm
04-17-2006, 11:34 AM
Did anyone catch this yesterday? During the game right before the rain delay, DJ was reading scores and he says "Guess who hit another homerun?"
and Hawk responds "hmmm, Shelton?". "You are right partner" said DJ.
Hawk could be overheard saying wow or something like that. after a minute, DJ than says "not bad for a Rule 5 pick, Shelton originally with the Pittsburgh Pirates", Hawk in the background then snickers a little bit.
A second or so of silence, and then DJ says "you know, its amazing, that there are some franchises out there, who have been historically really bad, just alot of bad luck, really scuffling, yet theyve had some very good players go right thru their franchise" Hawk then sarcastically laughs again
in the background, and I of course started to laugh myself ..............
I knew exactly what Hawk was doing. He of course was being pretty diplomatic, but essentially was saying what ive been saying all these years. the Pittsburgh Pirates are a JOKE.

I was watching a bit of the YES Broadcast of the Yankee$ and Twins and the broadcasters there basicly said the same thing and they even threw in the Devil Rays.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-17-2006, 11:46 AM
I was watching a bit of the YES Broadcast of the Yankee$ and Twins and the broadcasters there basicly said the same thing and they even threw in the Devil Rays.

And yet everything is better now because the Pirates get a welfare check to make them competitive. Oh, wait they aren't competitive...

Okay, so the Pirates will be be better when we force them to spend in a prescribed manner because they've shown such great competence to spend wisely in the past... oh, wait that's not true either!

Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but it's clear both of my points keep sailing over the head of 99.9 percent of baseball fans whining about salary caps, salary floors, and luxury taxes. You can't make the Pirates competitive unless being uncompetitive makes them feel real pain -- like fewer games against the best teams in MLB.

The truth hurts. Deal with it.
:cool:

Hangar18
04-17-2006, 11:51 AM
And yet everything is better now because the Pirates get a welfare check to make them competitive. Oh, wait they aren't competitive...

Okay, so the Pirates will be be better when we force them to spend in a prescribed manner because they've shown such great competence to spend wisely in the past... oh, wait that's not true either!

Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but it's clear both of my points keep sailing over the head of 99.9 percent of baseball fans whining about salary caps, salary floors, and luxury taxes. You can't make the Pirates competitive unless being uncompetitive makes them feel real pain -- like fewer games against the best teams in MLB.

The truth hurts. Deal with it.
:cool:

Ive got an idea. Why not just FOLD THEM & the Marlins?
Make me commissioner ............

palehozenychicty
04-17-2006, 12:00 PM
I was watching a bit of the YES Broadcast of the Yankee$ and Twins and the broadcasters there basicly said the same thing and they even threw in the Devil Rays.

The D-Rays have some nice young position players, like Crawford and Baldelli. If they EVER get a pitcher to pair with Kazmir....they could finish third in the E(SPN)ast.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-17-2006, 12:01 PM
Ive got an idea. Why not just FOLD THEM & the Marlins?
Make me commissioner ............

It's debatable whether contraction actually makes economic sense for the owners, but I guarantee the MLBPA wouldn't see it the way the owners do. And of course the fans in Pittsburgh and Florida get screwed over for nothing more than management's incompetence.

I really couldn't care less about the interests of the owners or the players. The FANS deserve better, whether they are in Pittsburgh, Miami, or even Chicago.

Hangar as baseball commissioner? That's a scary thought...
:wink:

skottyj242
04-17-2006, 12:04 PM
The D-Rays have some nice young position players, like Crawford and Baldelli. If they EVER get a pitcher to pair with Kazmir....they could finish third in the E(SPN)ast.

I don't know why but I'm a small fan of Seth McClung....probably just because of that gem he threw against the Indians on ESPN last year towards the end of the season.

Hangar18
04-17-2006, 12:05 PM
Hangar as baseball commissioner? That's a scary thought...
:wink:

heh hheh. Id clean house ....... big time. Fold a few teams,
a world-wide draft (no more drafting kids when theyre 12).

ewokpelts
04-17-2006, 12:34 PM
heh hheh. Id clean house ....... big time. Fold a few teams,
a world-wide draft (no more drafting kids when theyre 12).dont you mean SIGNING kids? you propose a worldwide draft to prevent a draft?
Gene

ewokpelts
04-17-2006, 12:42 PM
Did anyone catch this yesterday? During the game right before the rain delay, DJ was reading scores and he says "Guess who hit another homerun?"
and Hawk responds "hmmm, Shelton?". "You are right partner" said DJ.
Hawk could be overheard saying wow or something like that. after a minute, DJ than says "not bad for a Rule 5 pick, Shelton originally with the Pittsburgh Pirates", Hawk in the background then snickers a little bit.
A second or so of silence, and then DJ says "you know, its amazing, that there are some franchises out there, who have been historically really bad, just alot of bad luck, really scuffling, yet theyve had some very good players go right thru their franchise" Hawk then sarcastically laughs again
in the background, and I of course started to laugh myself ..............
I knew exactly what Hawk was doing. He of course was being pretty diplomatic, but essentially was saying what ive been saying all these years. the Pittsburgh Pirates are a JOKE.The Pirates post 1993 have been a joke. But before that, they used to be an elite NL team.
Between 1918 and 2006, the pirates have WON MORE WS than the Sox.(4 to the Sox' 1)
MORE League Championships than the Sox.(5 to the Sox' 3)
MORE Division Titles (9 to the Sox 4)

Gene

ondafarm
04-17-2006, 12:44 PM
The Pirates are a classic franchise, I think it would be a real shame to contract them.

I don't think they will improve until they can demonstrate a reliable steady stream of income and the way to do that is spread all TV money equally among all 30 teams in baseball. The Yankee$ have grown fat with so much more revenue than everybody else because of the TV money. If a fair plan was in place to spread Yankee money throughout baseball and everybody else's network money this would give all franchises a chance to be competetive. The Yank$ would have to be happy with keeping all their radio and gate money (which would still be a whole pile) but all of the other clubs in the league would have a steady revenue stream which would mean they could plow enough into developing talent and keeping it.

What's more, the Cub$ would hate this system as well, they get only a fair share of the revenue from their superstation.

TheOldRoman
04-17-2006, 12:47 PM
heh hheh. Id clean house ....... big time. Fold a few teams,
a world-wide draft (no more drafting kids when theyre 12).
First of all, you would have to eliminate teams in even numbers.

Second, I have thought about this point before. I think we should both be co-comissioners. We would nearly kill eachother several times, but when we came to an agreement, it would be good. You are just insane enough to have a rational thought every now and then. Together we would be unstoppable.:D:

Edict No. 1 - From here on out, the Mets are to eliminate ALL black from their uniforms, hats, shoes, jackets, and logo. Your team colors are as follows: royal blue, orange, and white. Thank you.

TaylorStSox
04-17-2006, 12:51 PM
This is really just a Cubs thread in disguise.

Hangar18
04-17-2006, 12:51 PM
First of all, you would have to eliminate teams in even numbers.

Second, I have thought about this point before. I think we should both be co-comissioners. We would nearly kill eachother several times, but when we came to an agreement, it would be good. You are just insane enough to have a rational thought every now and then. Together we would be unstoppable.:D:

Edict No. 1 - From here on out, the Mets are to eliminate ALL black from their uniforms, hats, shoes, jackets, and logo. Your team colors are as follows: royal blue, orange, and white. Thank you.


hehh heheh. Yup, the Mets would be next on my clean-up list. they embarrass me with those uniforms. sheesh. YES, Marlins/Pirates eliminated. Id give a new ownership group a 2nd chance though ........ I wouldnt want an empty pnc park for more than a few years. World draft, no more "signing" kids when theyre 12 anymore.

ewokpelts
04-17-2006, 12:56 PM
The Pirates are a classic franchise, I think it would be a real shame to contract them.

I don't think they will improve until they can demonstrate a reliable steady stream of income and the way to do that is spread all TV money equally among all 30 teams in baseball. The Yankee$ have grown fat with so much more revenue than everybody else because of the TV money. If a fair plan was in place to spread Yankee money throughout baseball and everybody else's network money this would give all franchises a chance to be competetive. The Yank$ would have to be happy with keeping all their radio and gate money (which would still be a whole pile) but all of the other clubs in the league would have a steady revenue stream which would mean they could plow enough into developing talent and keeping it.

What's more, the Cub$ would hate this system as well, they get only a fair share of the revenue from their superstation.sharing tv revenue is hard, since there's 4860 games to broadcast, with games almost everyday.
NO national tv partner would want to carry all that.
Plus, with more and more teams either owning stations or partnering with media companies(like comcast), it'll be hard to co-ordinate efforts.
The Fox and Espn money is split equally among all 30 teams.

Gene

Ol' No. 2
04-17-2006, 01:15 PM
And yet everything is better now because the Pirates get a welfare check to make them competitive. Oh, wait they aren't competitive...

Okay, so the Pirates will be be better when we force them to spend in a prescribed manner because they've shown such great competence to spend wisely in the past... oh, wait that's not true either!

Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but it's clear both of my points keep sailing over the head of 99.9 percent of baseball fans whining about salary caps, salary floors, and luxury taxes. You can't make the Pirates competitive unless being uncompetitive makes them feel real pain -- like fewer games against the best teams in MLB.

The truth hurts. Deal with it.
:cool:And that's never going to happen. Deal with it. A solution that has no chance of being implemented is no solution at all.

For a team to be competitive, a reasonable revenue stream is necessary, but not sufficient. The Mets have pretty much stunk for quite a while, but no one would blame that on insufficient revenues. There will always be poorly run teams that will not be competitive no matter how much money they have coming in. The objective of revenue sharing is to make it possible for well-run teams to be competitive, even though they play in a small market.

Flight #24
04-17-2006, 01:30 PM
And yet everything is better now because the Pirates get a welfare check to make them competitive. Oh, wait they aren't competitive...

Okay, so the Pirates will be be better when we force them to spend in a prescribed manner because they've shown such great competence to spend wisely in the past... oh, wait that's not true either!

Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but it's clear both of my points keep sailing over the head of 99.9 percent of baseball fans whining about salary caps, salary floors, and luxury taxes. You can't make the Pirates competitive unless being uncompetitive makes them feel real pain -- like fewer games against the best teams in MLB.

The truth hurts. Deal with it.
:cool:

(sigh)

The question is NOT whether revenue sharing/salary floor/etc make the Pirates competitive. There is no plan that will ensure a team is competitive. Even the PHG plan has the high likelihood that you'll have some teams simply say to their fans "we hope to use our young talent to move up to D1 and compete for a title in the future." You know, much like they do now. (Not to mention that that plan will never ever ever come to fruition.)

The question is whether or not floors/sharing/etc make teams MORE competitive than the current system. The answer is yes, unless you believe that owners are inherently lazy people who somehow amassed billions of dollars by getting lucky. This is generally not the case. Owners are greedy by nature, not lazy. If there's a way for them to generate extra $$$ with minimal downside risk, they'll do it.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-17-2006, 01:34 PM
And that's never going to happen. Deal with it.

And with an attitude like yours, of course it is never going to happen. The owners and players are more than happy to walk right over a fan like you that lies down and enjoys taking it. You're even foolish enough to think you're lying down for it will bring a solution that even you admit doesn't address the core problem. Pirates management is too incompetent to wisely use even the resources they do have, nevermind how much hand-holding nannyism you propose giving them.

How much longer must we delude ourselves while the facts keep smacking you in the face?
:o:

I guess that's the biggest difference between your position and mine. I'm fighting the problem. You're not. I'm part of the solution. You're part of the problem.

Deal with that.
:cool:

PaleHoseGeorge
04-17-2006, 01:40 PM
The question is whether or not floors/sharing/etc make teams MORE competitive than the current system. The answer is yes, unless you believe that owners are inherently lazy people who somehow amassed billions of dollars by getting lucky. This is generally not the case. Owners are greedy by nature, not lazy. If there's a way for them to generate extra $$$ with minimal downside risk, they'll do it.

Wow... just wow... I can't believe anyone would write something like this just hours after Chris Shelton, a Rule 5 signing after Pittsburgh let him go, hits another home run for the Detroit Tigers.

You know what? Hawk and DJ weren't laughing at the Pittsburgh Pirates. They were laughing at you and No. 2.

Lip Man 1
04-17-2006, 01:42 PM
The Pirates will be fine once Mark Cuban buys them... :D:

Cuban in an interview with The Sporting News radio network said he has no interest in buying a MLB team but if he did it would be Pittsbugh since that's the team he grew up rooting for in Indiana.

Lip

Hangar18
04-17-2006, 01:45 PM
The Pirates will be fine once Mark Cuban buys them... :D:

Cuban in an interview with The Sporting News radio network said he has no interest in buying a MLB team but if he did it would be Pittsbugh since that's the team he grew up rooting for in Indiana.

Lip

Cuban said that? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I'll halt the order for the bulldozers and wrecking balls for a moment .........

Ol' No. 2
04-17-2006, 01:51 PM
Wow... just wow... I can't believe anyone would write something like this just hours after Chris Shelton, a Rule 5 signing after Pittsburgh let him go, hits another home run for the Detroit Tigers.

You know what? Hawk and DJ weren't laughing at the Pittsburgh Pirates. They were laughing at you and No. 2.And the Jeffry Lorias of MLB are laughing at you because they know that the more people focus on outlandish proposals that have no chance of happening, they have nothing to fear.

palehozenychicty
04-17-2006, 01:57 PM
The Pirates will be fine once Mark Cuban buys them... :D:

Cuban in an interview with The Sporting News radio network said he has no interest in buying a MLB team but if he did it would be Pittsbugh since that's the team he grew up rooting for in Indiana.

Lip

That's been bandied around the media over the past year. They would definitely become more intriguing and better run. Cuban's sophmorific personality alienates some, but the Mavs were a corpse until he got there. McClatchy and MLB would find a way to screw up the proposal anyhow....

PaleHoseGeorge
04-17-2006, 01:58 PM
And the Jeffry Lorias of MLB are laughing at you because they know that the more people focus on outlandish proposals that have no chance of happening, they have nothing to fear.

Just lie down. You have no solutions. Just lie there. Even if we let the world follow your delusions about salary floors and nannyism, we'll be right back here in five years with nothing but excuses for why the next Chris Shelton doesn't play for the Pirates any longer.

Just lie there. You do it so well.
:cool:

Flight #24
04-17-2006, 02:21 PM
Just lie down. You have no solutions. Just lie there. Even if we let the world follow your delusions about salary floors and nannyism, we'll be right back here in five years with nothing but excuses for why the next Chris Shelton doesn't play for the Pirates any longer.

Just lie there. You do it so well.
:cool:

So your argument is actually that were the Pirates in a situation where they could be "relegated" to a lower division, they'd somehow make smarter decisions? Do Santa and the Tooth Fairy hold season tickets in this world of yours too?

Teams make bad decisions. Teams will always make bad decisions. Teams currently pay for it at the gate anyway. Sure, you can make it hurt more, but that won't really change anything. Some financial leveling can at least make sure that teams that CAN make good decisions are actually allowed to make them rather than being unable to due to a lack of resources.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-17-2006, 02:43 PM
Teams make bad decisions. Teams will always make bad decisions. Teams currently pay for it at the gate anyway. Sure, you can make it hurt more, but that won't really change anything. Some financial leveling can at least make sure that teams that CAN make good decisions are actually allowed to make them rather than being unable to due to a lack of resources.
HELLL - LLLOOOOOOOOO!!!!

The point isn't to relegate teams. The point is to make the best teams compete against the best teams. In case you hadn't noticed, people tend to get pissed off when they pay major league prices to watch our Sox play minor league talent. We barely get to play the Yankees at all with all the crap games against Kansas City and Tampa Bay!

The teams that make "bad decisions" as you call it can always come back and play at Sox Park when they get their act together. Giving them a welfare check or playing like their nanny is NO solution except to those delusional enough to think the next Chris Shelton won't slip right through the fingers of the incompetent boobs running the Pittsburgh Pirates -- notwithstanding welfare checks or nannyism.

Glad to finally clear it up for you.
:cool:

PaulDrake
04-17-2006, 02:48 PM
Most of my ancestors come from SW PA. The Pirates were not always a laughing stock. There was a time in Pittsburgh a couple of generations ago when you could take a walk in your neighborhood and never miss a pitch of the Pirate game. Most of the older brick and frame homes in Pittsburgh have ample porches, and many of your neighbors would be on their porches, sipping Iron City or Schmidts listening to Bob Prince call the games. The Galbreath family had a remarkable long term era of success owning the club. It's really sad. Pittsburgh is hard core blue collar, and a very unique city in a quirky kind of way. Most of the factories and mills have closed and now todays Pittsburgh sports kings the Steelers, almost never have a true away game. The geniuses on the sports networks like to say how Steelers fans "travel well." No dunceheads they live in those towns now. They just had to move if they wanted to continue eating and having a roof over their heads. Someday soon that may be true of the Pirates, and that fine ball park on Pittsburgh's North Side will be another symbol of the decline and fall of a once great rust belt town.

wdelaney72
04-17-2006, 03:15 PM
All I know is the current MLB situation blows. The one thing we do know is the only way to make the owners do ANYTHING is to make it financially uncomfortable to NOT do something. Therefore, there needs to be a system that punishes the underspending, not one punishes the overspending. The one argument I keep hearing is that a salary floor results in inflated contracts for moderate and below average players. While that may be true, it's a better situation than what we have now.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-17-2006, 03:19 PM
All I know is the current MLB situation blows. The one thing we do know is the only way to make the owners do ANYTHING is to make it financially uncomfortable to NOT do something. Therefore, there needs to be a system that punishes the underspending, not one punishes the overspending. The one argument I keep hearing is that a salary floor results in inflated contracts for moderate and below average players. While that may be true, it's a better situation than what we have now.
I see you're a big fan of Chris Shelton of the Pittsburgh Pirates, too. Oh, wait...

:roflmao:

PaleHoseGeorge
04-17-2006, 03:49 PM
This is really just a Cubs thread in disguise.


I'll give you three guesses who is "flubsessed" in this thread, TayorStreetSox. The second and third guesses don't count.

Some people...

Dan Mega
04-19-2006, 06:29 PM
Good heavens, lots of insulting and flaming in this thread. :?:

miker
04-19-2006, 06:36 PM
Good heavens, lots of insulting and flaming in this thread. :?:
Actually, this is quite tame by some standards.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-19-2006, 06:49 PM
Actually it's just an update on a series of similar past threads arguing the same points.

It just so happens that Chris Shelton's fast start to the 2006 season has provided plenty of new ammunition for blowing holes into the silly notion that we can make the Pittsburgh Pirates competitive if only we give them enough money and tell them how to spend it.

Stick around. Plenty more where that came from.
:cool:

santo=dorf
04-19-2006, 07:00 PM
Cuban said that? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I'll halt the order for the bulldozers and wrecking balls for a moment .........
Supposedly Mark Cuban told Dan Patrick he would buy the Cubs.

What do you think of him now?

PaulDrake
04-19-2006, 07:01 PM
Good heavens, lots of insulting and flaming in this thread. :?: I thought my nostalgic little post about olde Pittsburgh did wonders to lighten the mood. :?:

It's Time
04-19-2006, 07:56 PM
Supposedly Mark Cuban told Dan Patrick he would buy the Cubs.

What do you think of him now?

It will be the fault of the Chicago media for telling Dan Patrick to interview Cuban and ask him if he would buy the Cubs. This is a Tribune conspiracy.

ewokpelts
04-19-2006, 09:06 PM
Has anyone thought that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, that Shelton wasnt GOOD when the pirates decided not to protect him, and that he beat the odds and developed nicely in detroit's system?
For every first round bust like borchard, there's a mike piazza that was drafted low but beat the odds and became a good player?

Gene

PaleHoseGeorge
04-20-2006, 08:48 AM
Has anyone thought that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, that Shelton wasnt GOOD when the pirates decided not to protect him, and that he beat the odds and developed nicely in detroit's system?
For every first round bust like borchard, there's a mike piazza that was drafted low but beat the odds and became a good player?

Gene, that's what is called a distinction without a difference. The point is EVERYBODY becomes a better ballplayer when they leave Pittsburgh. That's what Hawk and DJ were laughing about!

Glad to help bring you in on the joke.
:cool:

Mark'sBrokenFoot
04-20-2006, 10:13 AM
Actually it's just an update on a series of similar past threads arguing the same points.

It just so happens that Chris Shelton's fast start to the 2006 season has provided plenty of new ammunition for blowing holes into the silly notion that we can make the Pittsburgh Pirates competitive if only we give them enough money and tell them how to spend it.

Stick around. Plenty more where that came from.
:cool:

Who really cares is the Pirates are competitive? I know I sure don't. What I care about is fairness. It is currently unfair that the Pirates don't have the same ammount to spend as every other team in the league. Revenue sharing and a cap/floor create fairness. Once everything is fair, I couldn't care less if the Pirates continue making stupid moves. That's their problem.

Take a look at the NFL. There are teams that are bad every year without fail. However, you'll never hear the Arizona Cardinals making excuses that they just can't compete. They suck and they know it. That's the way sports are meant to be. The Pirates are running the 100 meter relay 20 meters behind the starting line everybody else is lined up at.

Rearraging divisions is a terrible idea. All that does is artificially inflate records of mediocre teams, again, just like the NFL before they switched up the divisions. Playing a last place schedule used to be a real bonus. Now the entire division plays the same schedule with the exception of 2 games. The cream rises to the top.

Frater Perdurabo
04-20-2006, 10:29 AM
Supposedly Mark Cuban told Dan Patrick he would buy the Cubs.

What do you think of him now?

I listened to Dan Patrick's interview with Mark Cuban LIVE on Tuesday. Patrick was in Dallas to help celebrate the local ESPN affiliate's fifth anniversary. I typically do not listen to Dan Patrick as he's on when I'm at work, but I had Tuesday afternoon off. Also, I don't care for Patrick or ESPN, but kept listening once he said that Cuban would be on live during the next segment.

Anyway, Patrick and Cuban talked at length about the theory that because Cuban is a Pittsburgh native, that he might buy the Pirates. Cuban said that he would be interested, but that the current owners won't sell. He said that he had had informal discussions, nothing serious, and that the current owners probably are willing to put up with lots of criticism from the fans in exchange for the $15M to $20M they generate in profits each year.

Finally, Patrick asked Cuban if there was any other MLB team he might buy. Cuban emphatically said no, then laughed and jokingly answered "the Cubs." It was a joke. I do not believe he has any real interest in the Cubs. There's no real way he could increase the value of the team as the Tribune Company already has a sophisticated money-milking operation. Cuban could, however, generate significant return on investment buying a perennial cellar dweller like the Pirates, whose francise value probably is one-fourth the value of the Cubs.

I would be willing to bet that within five years, though, if Cuban will find a way to buy the team. He really wanted to buy the Mavericks and overpaid to get them, and I bet he would be willing to do the same with the Pirates. All he has to do is write a big enough check to cover the future profits the current owners expect. If anyone can come up with a successful business model, it's Cuban.

The bottom line for Pittsburgh is that the management team is only as good as what the owners are willing to pay. It's cheap and it's timid, but from a selfish business perspective, it's really not stupid.

The Immigrant
04-20-2006, 11:09 AM
Just wait until the Pirates trade Zach Duke and Jason Bay to the Cubs for Henry Blanco and Will Ohman this July. :angry:

That franchise is an absolute disgrace.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-20-2006, 12:15 PM
Take a look at the NFL. There are teams that are bad every year without fail. However, you'll never hear the Arizona Cardinals making excuses that they just can't compete. They suck and they know it. That's the way sports are meant to be. The Pirates are running the 100 meter relay 20 meters behind the starting line everybody else is lined up at.
Well, thank you for proving my point. The Bidwells have happily fielded an uncompetitive Cardinals team in three different cities these past 50 years and the NFL will keep the family fruitstand in business to field crappy uncompetitive teams forever because all the revenue sharing in the world can't make Bidwell competent enough to field a winner, just profitable enough to fly around in his own jet and vacation in exotic places. Thank you Chicago/St. Louis/Phoenix fans! And an extra big thank you to the NFL! We'll be back next year!

I'm sure the incompetent owners of the Pittsburgh Pirates would love to get the same guarantee to make the Pirates a laughingstock the next 50 years, too. All they need is to convince a few more dunderheads that their incompetence can be fixed with money -- notwithstanding the example of Chris Shelton, the latest in a series of terribly incompetent moves by the Pirates organization that has Hawk and DJ laughing at the stupidity of it all. Nothwithstanding the example of Bidwell's Cardinals, too.

Flight #24
04-20-2006, 12:51 PM
IMO, the point of any system should be to put the emphasis on the talents involved. So that means that the capabilities of the GM & front office would be the primary determinant in whether or not a team can contend.

The current system does not do that. The Yankees and Red Sox can make ludicrous mistakes (Matt Clement, Edgar Renteria, Carl Pavano, Kevin Brown) and it doesn't matter because they have the financial wherewithal to cover it up. The Twins for example, cannot do that. They basically have to have a near-perfect-storm of young/cheap talent all coming together at once to have a hope at a title. This is despite the fact that they have one of the best front offices in the game.

Leveling the financial playing field will not ensure competition, nothing will. You can avoid having to see non-contending teams with a proposal like PHG's, but that doesn't do much for fans in Pittsburgh, etc. But you CAN take strides to make sure that if your team does have a good GM, it's got a chance to be successful even against teams from much much larger markets.

ewokpelts
04-20-2006, 01:08 PM
And yet no one has mentioned roids.

9 homers in 15 games?
Shelton hit 18 in 107 games last year.

Gene

Flight #24
04-20-2006, 01:13 PM
And yet no one has mentioned roids.

9 homers in 15 games?
Shelton hit 18 in 107 games last year.

Gene

Chris SHgHelton?

PaleHoseGeorge
04-20-2006, 01:24 PM
Leveling the financial playing field will not ensure competition, nothing will. You can avoid having to see non-contending teams with a proposal like PHG's, but that doesn't do much for fans in Pittsburgh, etc. But you CAN take strides to make sure that if your team does have a good GM, it's got a chance to be successful even against teams from much much larger markets.
Well, not exactly. Yes, you can't make up for incompetence with revenue-sharing, luxury taxes, salary floors or any other scheme that is based on financial rather than competitive yardsticks. Shelton, Bidwell, and the guffaws of Hawk and DJ help underscore my point.

And yes, non-contending ballclubs do nothing for the fans in Pittsburgh. The best they can hope for is getting rid of their incompetent ownership, something ALL the financial solutions make worse, not better. These schemes subsidize incompetence... just like Bidwell's Cardinals. These solutions actually make the problem worse... as Cardinals fans in Chicago, St. Louis and Phoenix will attest (assuming you can find any still dumb enough to support Bidwell like the NFL does).

What I'm proposing is getting more games between teams that CAN compete. Instead of having the Yankees here 4 games per year, they'll play at Sox Park 20 times. Meanwhile the Royals and Devil Rays can play each other 20 or so times and the team that wins more of those games has a very good shot at playing with the big boys next season. They're REWARDED for their competence. The worst of the incompetent teams become a terrific value to a prospective new owner to buy cheap and lift out of the cellar with new, competent management -- more competent than the idiots who ran the ballclub into the ground in the first place. <cough!>PITTSBURGH!<cough!>

Who would deny the fans in Pittsburgh wouldn't be better served with competent new owners than the perpetually-screwed fans in Phoenix supporting Bidwell's subsidized losers for the rest of eternity?

Let's get real about who is looking out for competition and the best course of action for the fans of ALL ballclubs.

viagracat
04-20-2006, 01:50 PM
The NFL does this, scheduling conference teams outside the division based on won-loss. Better teams get better opponents where the schedule allows. I doubt MLB would ever endorse such a radical change in scheduling, but it's an idea worth thinking about.

On a slightly different note but kind of in the same mein, the NHL is considering loading up on Original Six matchups; IOW, the Hawks would get more games against Toronto, Montreal, Detroit, Boston and the NY Rangers and fewer against, say, the Columbus Blue Jackets.

Point is, better matchups probably mean better attendance. The better teams, whatever the defination may be, should be playing each other as much as practical.

ewokpelts
04-20-2006, 02:02 PM
The NFL does this, scheduling conference teams outside the division based on won-loss. Better teams get better opponents where the schedule allows. I doubt MLB would ever endorse such a radical change in scheduling, but it's an idea worth thinking about.

On a slightly different note but kind of in the same mein, the NHL is considering loading up on Original Six matchups; IOW, the Hawks would get more games against Toronto, Montreal, Detroit, Boston and the NY Rangers and fewer against, say, the Columbus Blue Jackets.

Point is, better matchups probably mean better attendance. The better teams, whatever the defination may be, should be playing each other as much as practical.nfl scheds have been drawn up years in advance.

The packers knew who'd they be playing in 2006-2007 in 2004-2005.
They had a pdf of thier tenative scheds up on thier site a few years ago.
Gene

Flight #24
04-20-2006, 02:28 PM
Well, not exactly. Yes, you can't make up for incompetence with revenue-sharing, luxury taxes, salary floors or any other scheme that is based on financial rather than competitive yardsticks. Shelton, Bidwell, and the guffaws of Hawk and DJ help underscore my point.

And yes, non-contending ballclubs do nothing for the fans in Pittsburgh. The best they can hope for is getting rid of their incompetent ownership, something ALL the financial solutions make worse, not better. These schemes subsidize incompetence... just like Bidwell's Cardinals. These solutions actually make the problem worse... as Cardinals fans in Chicago, St. Louis and Phoenix will attest (assuming you can find any still dumb enough to support Bidwell like the NFL does).

What I'm proposing is getting more games between teams that CAN compete. Instead of having the Yankees here 4 games per year, they'll play at Sox Park 20 times. Meanwhile the Royals and Devil Rays can play each other 20 or so times and the team that wins more of those games has a very good shot at playing with the big boys next season. They're REWARDED for their competence. The worst of the incompetent teams become a terrific value to a prospective new owner to buy cheap and lift out of the cellar with new, competent management -- more competent than the idiots who ran the ballclub into the ground in the first place. <cough!>PITTSBURGH!<cough!>

Who would deny the fans in Pittsburgh wouldn't be better served with competent new owners than the perpetually-screwed fans in Phoenix supporting Bidwell's subsidized losers for the rest of eternity?

Let's get real about who is looking out for competition and the best course of action for the fans of ALL ballclubs.

Here's the problem. Yes, you can subsidize incompetence with financial alterations. But you can also enable a well-run team like Minnesota to not be significantly disadvantaged relative to say New York or Boston and be able to contend for an extended period of time.

The "premier league" plan will almost certainly result in a handful of teams with high revenue bases (NYY, NYM, Boston, CHC, CHW, LAA, LAD) consistently in the upper division regardless of the capabilities of management. Simply because they can "buy over" their mistakes should they choose to. These are pretty much the only teams that will be regular contenders. Meanwhile, you'll have well-run teams that oscillate between the upper & lower divisions, being real contenders very occasionally and the poorly-run teams with no hope that stay in DII. No too dissimilar from what exists today.

In your plan, the Pirates could hire a first-rate management team with a realistic hope of being a contender in maybe 3 out of 8 years. With financial restructuring, the Pirates could hire the same management team and be consistent contenders.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-20-2006, 02:52 PM
In your plan, the Pirates could hire a first-rate management team with a realistic hope of being a contender in maybe 3 out of 8 years. With financial restructuring, the Pirates could hire the same management team and be consistent contenders.
Too bad the facts don't support your assertion. The Pirates *have* been a competitive club and they have not always been a laughingstock. In fact they were less of a laughingstock before they started getting MLB welfare checks. You're grasping for something that doesn't exist.

The fact is a wider variety of MLB teams have been able to win and win consistently in the era since free agency began than the period before. You would be very hard pressed to state otherwise. Don't forget teams from New York won 15 out of 30 world championships from 1946 through 1975. (And Los Angeles chipped in 3 of the remaining 15.)

I'm not sure exactly when this golden era of financial and competitive baseball parity is supposed to have happened, but you'll need to be a lot more convincing than suggest Pittsburgh is too financially starved to be competent.

Flight #24
04-20-2006, 03:34 PM
Too bad the facts don't support your assertion. The Pirates *have* been a competitive club and they have not always been a laughingstock. In fact they were less of a laughingstock before they started getting MLB welfare checks. You're grasping for something that doesn't exist.

The fact is a wider variety of MLB teams have been able to win and win consistently in the era since free agency began than the period before. You would be very hard pressed to state otherwise. Don't forget teams from New York won 15 out of 30 world championships from 1946 through 1975. (And Los Angeles chipped in 3 of the remaining 15.)

I'm not sure exactly when this golden era of financial and competitive baseball parity is supposed to have happened, but you'll need to be a lot more convincing than suggest Pittsburgh is too financially starved to be competent.


It's not about finding some long-ago nirvana, it's about finding a situation in the future that's better than the one that exists today. But the distinction is far greater than you make it out to be.

Check the annual average salary tables by team, note when the divergence between higher and lower end teams began, and check the records for the teams at the respective ends since then. That's got a lot more to do with it than the revenue sharing. The FA era is a meaningless date for this discussion since the key point is not when players were allowed to switch teams, but when the revenue disparity began to be a factor in some teams stockpiling high-salaried FAs and some being priced out of them. The question at hand is whether or not financial parity leads to greater competitiveness. The divergence appears to occur in the late 90s. So records pre & post that would be more relevant.

For the record, from 1998-2005, low-revenue teams have occupied roughly 13 of the 32 available Championship Series slots (40%). From 1989-1997, it was 18/32(57%). That's a significant change that occurs right around when team salaries begin to diverge.

In 1992, when the Pirates were competitive, they had a payroll of $32.5M in a league where the top payroll was $44M. By 2000, their payroll was $26.6M in a league where the top payroll was $92.9M. But I'm sure that had nothing to do with them being less competitive.

viagracat
04-20-2006, 03:38 PM
nfl scheds have been drawn up years in advance.

The packers knew who'd they be playing in 2006-2007 in 2004-2005.
They had a pdf of thier tenative scheds up on thier site a few years ago.
Gene

Then that's fairly recent, b/c where you ended up in your division did make a difference not long ago in certain conference games. If you finished first, you got scheduled games with other first-place finishers, and on down the line. You always got two games vs your division opponents and the interconference games rotate among divisions, but the others depend(ed) on where you finished.

Flight #24
04-20-2006, 03:48 PM
Then that's fairly recent, b/c where you ended up in your division did make a difference not long ago in certain conference games. If you finished first, you got scheduled games with other first-place finishers, and on down the line. You always got two games vs your division opponents and the interconference games rotate among divisions, but the others depend(ed) on where you finished.

It was always preset in that you played your division twice(8 games), played one non-conf division(4 games), and then the rest were done based on finish. When the NFL realigned, they implemented a system where you play your division twice (6 games), a non-conf division once (4 games), and an in-conf division once (4 games). Those are all pre-set in advance, it's only the remaining 2 games that are done based on finish.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-20-2006, 03:55 PM
It's not about finding some long-ago nirvana, it's about finding a situation in the future that's better than the one that exists today. But the distinction is far greater than you make it out to be.

Check the annual average salary tables by team, note when the divergence between higher and lower end teams began, and check the records for the teams at the respective ends since then. That's got a lot more to do with it than the revenue sharing. The FA era is a meaningless date for this discussion since the key point is not when players were allowed to switch teams, but when the revenue disparity began to be a factor in some teams stockpiling high-salaried FAs and some being priced out of them. The question at hand is whether or not financial parity leads to greater competitiveness. The divergence appears to occur in the late 90s. So records pre & post that would be more relevant.

For the record, from 1998-2005, low-revenue teams have occupied roughly 13 of the 32 available Championship Series slots (40%). From 1989-1997, it was 18/32(57%). That's a significant change that occurs right around when team salaries begin to diverge.
Look, I gave you two equally-long 30 year periods covering 100 percent of the last 60 years so I wouldn't have to get into a silly statistical argument based on when the trend fits whatever one side or the other wants the numbers to say. Your statistics are bull**** because you're picking the dates.

(I might also note they are bull**** because ballplayers before 1975 were tied to their teams by the reserve clause and that the explosion of salaries occurred shortly thereafter, not 1989 when the owners were found guilty of collusion to suppress salaries, and certainly not 1998 when MLB started serving up welfare checks -- actually making the problem of competitive balance worse, not better -- but I'm sure the point would be utterly lost on you since you're already handing me the very ammunition to shoot down your silly assertions with your own bull**** statistics.)

I'm measuring competitiveness on just one yardstick: wins. If you think there are no bull**** statistics to refute the bull**** statistics you created here, you are sadly mistakened. And furthermore you'll be arguing with yourself, not me. I won't waste my time because 10 pages from now nothing will have been decided.

Try again.

PaulDrake
04-20-2006, 04:27 PM
And yet no one has mentioned roids.

9 homers in 15 games?
Shelton hit 18 in 107 games last year.

Gene I doubt Shelton is on the juice and I'm quite the cynic.

soxinem1
04-20-2006, 05:12 PM
Ive got an idea. Why not just FOLD THEM & the Marlins?
Make me commissioner ............

And the D-Rays too... That team will never win. They will just be a farm team for MLB.

Before ST I really thought the Bucs had something going, and they do, offensively. They rank up there in all the hitting stats ands this may be the best offensive team the Bucs put out there in some time, but the pitching injuries (and Marte's total inneffectiveness) have really hurt.

I really thought that they would be a force, not farce.

SouthSide_HitMen
04-20-2006, 06:18 PM
Most of my ancestors come from SW PA. The Pirates were not always a laughing stock. There was a time in Pittsburgh a couple of generations ago when you could take a walk in your neighborhood and never miss a pitch of the Pirate game. Most of the older brick and frame homes in Pittsburgh have ample porches, and many of your neighbors would be on their porches, sipping Iron City or Schmidts listening to Bob Prince call the games. The Galbreath family had a remarkable long term era of success owning the club. It's really sad. Pittsburgh is hard core blue collar, and a very unique city in a quirky kind of way. Most of the factories and mills have closed and now todays Pittsburgh sports kings the Steelers, almost never have a true away game. The geniuses on the sports networks like to say how Steelers fans "travel well." No dunceheads they live in those towns now. They just had to move if they wanted to continue eating and having a roof over their heads. Someday soon that may be true of the Pirates, and that fine ball park on Pittsburgh's North Side will be another symbol of the decline and fall of a once great rust belt town.

That is true but fan support has not been there even in the good years. The Pirates couldn't sell out the 1979 World Series (whereas people here would give their first born up for tickets). The Steelers, on the otherhand could sellout double capacity for an exhibition game if it was part of a season ticket package. Many people were driven out due to the economy the past two generations and it is great to see Pittsburgh rebounding but the Steelers are first, second, third in the heart of Pittsburgh fans (fourth is Penn State football or the Panthers for the heathens).

SouthSide_HitMen
04-20-2006, 06:24 PM
Hangar as baseball commissioner? That's a scary thought...
:wink:

This Date in Baseball History

December 8, 2009 12 noon EST. Hanger is named commissioner of baseball to replace Bud Selig as announced at the MLB Winter Meetings.

December 8, 2009 12:00:01 EST. Hanger has announced the Chicago Cubs are hereby contracted as decided by Commissioner Hanger. Hanger said the contraction of the Cubs are "In the best interests of baseball".

:D:

SouthSide_HitMen
04-20-2006, 06:44 PM
The question at hand is whether or not financial parity leads to greater competitiveness. The divergence appears to occur in the late 90s. So records pre & post that would be more relevant.

For the record, from 1998-2005, low-revenue teams have occupied roughly 13 of the 32 available Championship Series slots (40%). From 1989-1997, it was 18/32(57%). That's a significant change that occurs right around when team salaries begin to diverge.

In 1992, when the Pirates were competitive, they had a payroll of $32.5M in a league where the top payroll was $44M. By 2000, their payroll was $26.6M in a league where the top payroll was $92.9M. But I'm sure that had nothing to do with them being less competitive.

It happened after Bud Selig and his partner Jerry Reinsdorf took the hard line stance for the need of a salary cap and revenue sharing cancelling 1994 to "restore fiscal order to the game". After the World Series was ruined and both sides finally agreed (and the owners lost for the 14th (est) time since Marvin Miller ran the union) Jerry's idea of "fiscal order" was signing Albert Belle to the largest salary in Baseball history (and sending the club into their only four years of unprofitably under the Reinsdorf / Einhorn regime). The current MLB management are incapable of handling this or any other issue. Best to keep asking for taxpayer cash and making sure all 30 teams in their syndicate remain profitable - product be damned.

Also, there have always been sorry ass teams spending nothing (selling their top players) and finishing in the bottom throughout baseball history with the Philadelphia / Kansas City A's, Washington Senators I and II, St. Louis Browns, Boston Braves among them. These teams did win once or twice but only when ownership spent the cash and was actively pursuing the title. There was no revenue sharing "back in the day" so team owners lost money if they could not draw fans (real losses - not the fake half of billion dollar collective loss Bud Selig claimed during testimony to congress). Currently, an owner could give a rats ass what the team does on the field be it a low revenue team (Pittsburgh) or high revenue team (Cubs, Mets) as long as they profit which the enormous amounts of TV, MLB Merchandise and Online Revenue and now MLB welfare guarantees to all 30 clubs.

TheOldRoman
04-20-2006, 08:24 PM
Just wait until the Pirates trade Zach Duke and Jason Bay to the Cubs for Henry Blanco and Will Ohman this July. :angry:

That franchise is an absolute disgrace.
:rolleyes:
It looks like Hangar registered under a new name.

Frater Perdurabo
04-21-2006, 10:37 AM
The real problem within the current system is the lack of strong, indpendent commissioner willing to go to war with the owners.

Right now "collusion" is going on among all the owners and the players association because everyone is getting rich.

Owners of big market teams, particularly the Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Cubs and Dodgers, leverage their large market status to spend lots on payroll but generate enough to still make obscene profits. They collude with the owners of small market teams, like the Pirates, Rays, Marlins, Royals, Reds, Athletics, etc., who are guaranteed a profit as long as they keep their payrolls low.

The perennial low-budget cellar-dwellers (the Marlins' two WS wins notwithstanding) provide patsy competition for the big boys to beat up on and get into the playoffs year after year. These small market teams have no incentive to invest in their organizations once cities give them new or refurbished stadiums and their revenue-sharing check arrives each year. They may develop good players, but those players leave for the big bucks when they reach free agency, or teams trade them away before they get too expensive.

Everyone's making money. Otherwise we'd see more teams up for sale. No one really wants to sell.

A strong, independent commissioner would handle this situation. A lackey commissioner has no reason or incentive to do so; in fact, his job is to protect the interests of the owners; to maintain and augment profits!

I like George's idea to have tiered "divisions," not unlike English soccer, where teams have to earn their way into the upper division. (I also liked his proposal for concurrent split seasons with traditional leagues and geographically-based divisions for a post-season tournament.)

A simpler strategy might be for a powerful, independent commissioner who, within the broad "best interests of baseball clause" could unilaterally put a team up for sale if in his/her considered opinion, the owner(s) of that franchise was not acting in the best interests of that team's fan base.

If I was the commish, the Pirates would not be contracted, but the current ownership group would be stripped of the team so Mark Cuban could buy it at a fair price.

ewokpelts
04-21-2006, 11:21 AM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble. But, the Comissioner has ALWAYS BEEN AN EMPLOYEE OF MLB INC.

Selig was just the first BASEBALL TEAM executive to become comissioner(Giamatti was NL prez for a while). Most of the Comissioners were from other fields, and aside from Landis, didnt have too much power. Most power was in the hands of the League Presidents.
Selig's rise to power stemmed from his belief that Vincent wasnt serving his BOSSES(that'd be mlb inc and the 28 teams).

Gene

Lip Man 1
04-21-2006, 12:52 PM
EWOK:

Tell that to Bowie Kuhn when he stopped Charlie Finley's deals to get rid of Rudi, Blue, Fingers and Bando to the Red Sox and Yankees.

Or to Happy Chandler when he allowed Jackie Robinson to play.

Or to Fay Vincent when he stopped the pre-season lock out in 1990 enraging the owners.

I disagree....past commissioners were hired by the owners but for whatever reason or reasons, felt the sport was of greater concern. Bud Selig is the first commissioner hired by the owners who could care less about the sport so long as the owners are happy and he can keep his job.

Lip

chisoxfanatic
04-21-2006, 06:17 PM
I was watching a bit of the YES Broadcast of the Yankee$ and Twins and the broadcasters there basicly said the same thing and they even threw in the Devil Rays.

I kind of feel bad for Tampa. You throw an expansion team in with the Yankees and Red Sox. You can't expect them to be successful under those constraints. Arizona sure got their title much easier playing in the much less competitive NL West.

dropkick371
04-21-2006, 08:34 PM
As a fan of the Pittsburgh Pirates, I might be a bit more than "slightly" biased here, but the talk of collapsing one of the teams that played in the first World Series strikes me as a bit ludicrous, particularly when that team won it within the last thirty years (1979). It's clear that the current Pirates ownership doesn't have any desire to field a competitive product, and obvious from the Shelton fumble, the Aramis Ramirez disaster and trading Jason Schmidt for Ryan Vogelsong and Armando Rios that Dave Littlefield has absolutely no clue what he's doing. The current sentiment among Pirates fans appears to be quiet hoping for the current ownership to sell after the All-Star Game, and for Mark Cuban to buy the team and hire someone that knows what the hell they're doing.

I've bought the small-market thing for a while, and can see how it would be distinctly negative for the Bucs, especially considering that Pittsburgh is more a Steelers town than a Pirates town, but the fact that St. Louis is very similar demographically makes me reconsider a bit.

PaulDrake
04-21-2006, 08:51 PM
I've bought the small-market thing for a while, and can see how it would be distinctly negative for the Bucs, especially considering that Pittsburgh is more a Steelers town than a Pirates town, but the fact that St. Louis is very similar demographically makes me reconsider a bit. Somewhat similar demographically yes, but St. Louis is a modern day rarity in that it is decidedly a baseball city. Whatever meager interest that is left in the Pirates this year will be gone about a week or two before the Steelers start their training camp.

dropkick371
04-21-2006, 09:11 PM
Somewhat similar demographically yes, but St. Louis is a modern day rarity in that it is decidedly a baseball city. Whatever meager interest that is left in the Pirates this year will be gone about a week or two before the Steelers start their training camp.I tried to include the fact that Pittsburgh is a football town, though the Pirates remain an integral part of the city's sports culture. If the management would put a competitive product on the field, I have no doubt that they'd draw the fans back in. As it stands, it's hard to be a casual Pirates fan.

Ol' No. 2
04-22-2006, 12:18 AM
EWOK:

Tell that to Bowie Kuhn when he stopped Charlie Finley's deals to get rid of Rudi, Blue, Fingers and Bando to the Red Sox and Yankees.

Or to Happy Chandler when he allowed Jackie Robinson to play.

Or to Fay Vincent when he stopped the pre-season lock out in 1990 enraging the owners.

I disagree....past commissioners were hired by the owners but for whatever reason or reasons, felt the sport was of greater concern. Bud Selig is the first commissioner hired by the owners who could care less about the sport so long as the owners are happy and he can keep his job.

LipSince Landis, some commissioners have wielded more power than others. But don't kid yourself. Kuhn could not have stood up to Finley without the assent and backing of the other owners. Ditto for Chandler. It was Vincent's interfering with the lockout that was his undoing (and not anything to do with the Cubs). The owners finally decided they wanted someone to look out for their interests.