The fate of Baseball in the US

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by JediTre11, Jun 3, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sleazo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2001
    star 4
    So we are in agreement here, then badmanagement = bad teams.
    But if we are talking about the D'Backs, Schilling and johnson are the reason they won the Championship.
    Though they did give up good prospects for schilling, like padilla I think that trade worked out well for them. I look foward to another Yankee D'Back WS this year.
  2. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    But if we are talking about the D'Backs, Schilling and johnson are the reason they won the Championship.


    I think that's a bit too simplistic, although I would agree that they were a major reason they won it.

    I appreciate the reference to the prospects that they gave up for Schilling. Good call. And I would certainly like to see another Arizona-New York battle.

    We are indeed in at least partial agreement. Management is an absolutely essential part of the equation. Bad management with either unlimited resources or limited resources equals a losing team no matter what. The Yankees had terrible management for years with similar resources (although in a different kind of market in baseball) and didn't win a division title from 1981 to 1996.

  3. JediTre11 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 25, 2001
    star 4
    Yankees v. D'backs

    Never happen, Boston is just to good this year. I don't think the Yankees will make it through Seattle and Boston. Not with the new roster.
  4. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Boston is just to good this year

    I won't believe Boston has a playoff spot until the day the season ends and they're officially in. All you need to remember is 1978. I think they have a good shot, but their pitching is shaky underneath the seeming brilliance and could collapse at any time.
  5. sleazo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2001
    star 4
    Boston has been in first place as of june 1st the past three years, maybe this year they will fininsh that way.
    Sorry to burst your bubble but the flag will be back in the Bx.


    And without Johnson and Schilling the D'backs wouldnt even be a 500 team.
  6. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    And without Johnson and Schilling the D'backs wouldnt even be a 500 team.

    Sure, they are the Diamondbacks star players. Each (winning)team has a couple players that you could take away like that. It's like saying that without Mantle and Ford in the 50s and 60s, the Yankees were a sub-500 team.
  7. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    ...and this is why baseball won't 'die'. Even in the middle of a discussion of Baseball's bleak future and nitty-gritty financial issues, people still are fans. I love it!



    some background material...



    http://dynamic.espn.go.com/espn/chat/chatESPN?event_id=1864
  8. Darth Scooby Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 1999
    star 4
    First of all, you've been reading too much Neyer Red Seven. ;)

    Second, let's not get into a who's gonna beat who this year. That's for another thread.

    Third, the Mets may have a big payroll, but they do not end up under .500 year after year,s o I don't appreciate you lumping them in with the Orioles and Dodgers (who are actually quite good, just snakebit with injuries).

    Fourth, the question of parity is a tricky one. Sure, it's not a new issue, and has been going on for a long time. Sure, it's not just about the money, but also about the ability to find and develop talent. But in the end, it's about the ability to hold that talent over an extended period of time. The Twins may be riding high, but they will not be able to sustain such a rise over the course of more than a couple of years, because they won't be able to afford it. The A's may ride a few more years on the arms of Zito, Hudson and Mulder (if they remain healthy), but they will never be able to afford to keep them all over the long haul. Teams with money will always be able to buy new talent ("buy" in this case means either through free agancy or fleecing smaller market teams of high price talent through trades designed to lower payroll and save face). Sure, you can point to the failures, but more often than not, the rule of money stands.

    Finally, in terms of a possible strike, even though I understand the wish not to have salries lagging, I still cannot fathom supporting players who strike because they don't want salaries to stop growing exponentially. Standing on principle is one thing, but I still cannot side with those who feel it's not fair that they only get offered 2 million instead of 4. I know owners are greedy and want more profit, but in the end, they are the one who have the financial risk. If a team does poorly, or a player does poorly, the player still gets paid his full salary. If the team does poorly and loses money, the owner loses on his investment.
  9. sleazo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2001
    star 4
    Oh you are so right the Mets were never dubbed the "worst team money can buy"

    and lets not forget the card playing incident of a couple of years ago.


    Mets fans are soooo cute :p

    Oh and without Ford and Mantle the 50's yanks were still stacked with talent up and down the roster.
  10. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Oh and without Ford and Mantle the 50's yanks were still stacked with talent up and down the roster.

    Would you be so kind as to name some of them?

    I'm referring to the Yankees of the late 50s to mid-60s.
  11. sleazo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2001
    star 4
    I could be so kind, though you probably have not heard of a lot of these guys they had some great years

    Yogi berra, Elston howard, Roger Maris, Johnny Blanchard, Art Ditmar, Billy Martin, Moose Skowron, Johnny Sain, Phil Rizzuto, Mel Stottlemyer, Don Larsen(not good during the regular season but th eman threw a perfect game), Ed Lopat, Allie Reynolds, Vic raschi, Bob Turley. The yanks won during these years thanks to pitching. Whitey Ford may have been the ace, but the Yankees had a great all around rotation most of those years.


    In Baseball you dont win all of those years b/c of just two guys.
  12. Darth Scooby Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 1999
    star 4
    See, this is just like a Yankee fan, arrogant to the end. You referred to the Mets as having a huge payroll and finishing under .500. This is just not the case. Even last year, when they were lousy, they were over .500. You have to go back 10 years to get to them being lousy with a high payroll. And doing that, you also find the Yankees in the same boat. That's what I took issue with. And your snide, sarcastic remarks in response just make you look like an ass

    As for the card playing incident, what in the hell does that have to do with anything. What are you trying to say? That is a complete non-sequiter. The discussion was not about the relative merits of the teams, but rather the politics and economics of the game. You just can't seem to let go of the fact that the team you root for is really good. You have to make it so the rest of the people who don't share your rooting interest are labeled stupid.

    That's all I have to say about the team rivalries, I don't want this to degenerate into a my team is better than your team issue.

    And asking for names of players doesn't help either. Any competent baseball website will give you lists of players who played for any team, any time. It is a fact that they had some really good players to help support the big 2.
  13. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Not on the level of Mantle and Ford. Take those two away and they wouldn't have done what they did.

    Same for the Dodgers without Koufax and Drysdale (or Wills), and so on.

    But you're right, I (or anyone else) can look up the info for myself.

  14. sleazo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2001
    star 4
    Wow, mets fans get angry so easily.
    Yes you are right the Mets did finish above 500 last year, 82-80.

    And yes Yankee fans are arrogant. Nothing new there.

    And I actually did not get those names off of a web site, I am well versed in Yankee lore.



    You are just angry because you chose the wrong team to root for as a wee lad.


    As for the one two punch of the D'backs, they might just be the best twosome of all time.. This is not to slight the whole D'Backs team(You Gotta Love Junior Spivey), more of a compliment to Randy and Curt
  15. Darth Scooby Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 1999
    star 4
    Actually, I wasn't referring to you about the web site. I had no idea about any names you pulled from anywhere. I was referring to the person who asked for names of good Yankee players from the late 50s, early 60s besides Mantle and Ford. It seemed to me to be an exercise in ridiculousness.

    What I got mad at was your lack of understanding of what I said and your lack of understanding as to any of my points. To me, you took it as another way you could show your "superiority", because you happen to root for a team that is doing well now. The fact that you dislike the team I root for has nothing to do with anything. That was taken as inherent when you revealed you rooting interest.

    Look, things in sports tend to ebba nd flow, with some teams rising up, while others drop. It goes in cycles. Around here, everyone looks to the Redskins to return to their former glory, not remembering that they were only very good for about 10 years, then were average to crap for the other 60. However, in these other sports, such movement is possible because of their structures.

    In baseball, such movement is limited. Like I said, you have exceptions, but such exceptions only prove the point. When the Twins win the central this year, as they have a good chance of doing, they will be hailed by those of of the intellectual set (mostly smug baseball writers) as proof that all you need is good talent evaluation to win. However, when they are forced to sell off their talent over the course of the next 3-5 years, what will these people say then? Look at it. The A's will be in the same boat. Heck, they may even win over an extended period of time because of talent evaluation, but eventually, they will drop back down. The A's will not win a championship in the foreseeable future. I would be highly surprised. Their window is closed.

    I hear people say that when Clemens retires, the Yankees will be short on pitching. But you know, all they need to do is buy another big time pitcher. I wonder who? Oh, I don't know, there are 3 guys out in Oakland who might be available in a couple of years. You see how this works? (I swear, I'm not picking on the Yankees out of meanness. They are just the most identifiable source of the problem. It could be any team). The teams with money can always buy their way to the top. Those without, can't. They can talent evaluate their way close, but that doesn't put them over the hump. Then, they have to drop the talent because the bucks are too high.

    Arghhhhh! It's just a game. If they strike again, I'll probably stay away forever. It took me 6 years to go back last time, and that was only because my wife dragged me to the series in 2000. Strike this time, and I refuse to return, although my son will probably make me go to an O's game eventually (but that's not really baseball, right? We can all agree on that). ;)
  16. sleazo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2001
    star 4
    I agree with you on most points, my problem is thus...even when the A's are winning, they dont draw that many fans. If you do not make money, you cannot support a good team. Teams that sell out constantly, yet are in mid range cities such as Cleveland and Baltimore can afford to keep their big name players. If the fans dont support their teams, then the teams cannot afford to sign their players.
    As far as Oakland is concerned, i dont really think the Bay area can support two teams. The A's franchise has been in three cities already, why not make a move for a fourth. And the Expos hopefully will be allowed to move to DC, which will help the franchise. Montreal is not a market that can support baseball, why not move them to DC which is an area hungry for baseball again.
    I am in favor of moving franchises to more profitable locations. This will be beneficial to competitiveness in MLB.(as will contraction, but that is another argument altogether).



    Sorry, I grew up in the 1980's when the Yanks sucked and the Mets were awesome, so i truly hate the Mets.

    And Clemens retiring should not be too bad, we have plenty of live arms in the minors, plus Ted Lilly to compensate for the loss of the rocket. Jeff Weaver wouldn't hurt either
  17. Darth Scooby Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 1999
    star 4
    Well I grew up in the 70's, when the Mets sucked and the Yankees were great. And the Yanks didn't suck in the 80's, they just weren't at the top. They had some good years, just not great. The Mets, after 1976, just really sucked (must've been the manager ;))

    The problem with your theory about fan support is that fannies in the seats does not translate into wealth. Ballpark attendance is not where teams make money. Television revenue is. Even when mid-level city teams were selling out, they weren't making the dough the others were (Braves, Yanks, Mets, Dodgers, Sox, etc...) because the TV revenue was not there. Heck, the Braves couldn't even sell out playoff games, but they made money because of the TV contract. That is the main culprit. Until tv revenue gets spread around, nothing changes. Since that won't happen, nothing will.

    As to relocation, that's fine, I'm all for it. But if the Expos want to move to the DC area, I'll be damned if my taxes are gonna pay for a new stadium. They want a stadium, they should pay for it themselves.
  18. sleazo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2001
    star 4
    fannies in the seats is indicative of people watching the game at home, no viewers = no tv revenue.
  19. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    fannies in the seats is indicative of people watching the game at home

    1 million fans used to be a great season for a team in terms of attendance. Now it's not enough at all. Attendance has risen dramatically over the years.
  20. Darth Scooby Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 1999
    star 4
    not true. just ask any hockey executive. Most joke that in any given town, there are 16-20,000 hockey fans. They're all at the game. That's why the hockey arenas are full, but the ratings always suck.

    Fans in the seats is not a clear indication of tv revenue. Hell, even if it is, that still doesn't make a difference. Even the highest rated shows in KC or Minny, etc... are not gonna draw the same viewers as those in NY, LA, etc..., and certainly not the advertising rates. Couple that with national networks like TBS and now YES, and you have an almost limitless supply of $.

    btw, after all that talk about the Expos in April, look who's on top in the NL East. What a shock!

    One last thing, to someone who suggested Bonds could become the greatest ever. If he hits 1,000 homeruns, he will still not be the best ever. Babe Ruth was far and away the greatest baseball player ever. Even considering Mays, Williams, and all others, he is light years ahead of them.
  21. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Ruth is not the greatest ever. Put him into today's time and it would be a different story for him, I believe. Willie Mays is probably the greatest ever, with Aaron right there with him.
  22. sleazo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2001
    star 4
    What makes Ruth the greatest ever is how much better he was compared to people of his time. When he hit 60 dingers, no other team hit that many. Couple that with the fact that he was an excellent picture, his batting avg, rbi's and you have the greatest all around baseball player ever.

    Willie Mays is up there, but i wouldnt put Aaron up there with those two. Ted Williams and The Mick were better than Aaron.
  23. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    No, Aaron is right up there with him. He was just a bit more quiet about it. He is in first place in virtually all the major categories, other than hits, where he remains fourth (I think).

  24. sleazo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2001
    star 4
    He is in first place due to longevity. Give Ruth a few more years hitting instead of pitching and the numbers will change.

    If you look at Averages Ruth is clearly better
  25. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Had Aaron played in a friendlier hitter's park for all of his career, instead of County Stadium for over a decade, the numbers would also have been much different (and the same goes for Mays as well).
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.