Unofficial Adrian Gonzalez thread.

[Gom]

Case in point.

 

No sense talking to you about it.

Way to take my words out of context. I expected no less.

 

That being said, I wonder what other teams would go for AG. I wouldn't sleep on the Braves.

[Palodios]

A couple years ago' date=' the Nets were year-in /year-out playoffs visitors. The balance of power switches hands.[/quote']

 

The Celtics and Lakers alone have won half of the nba titles in the last sixty years. The nets have won zero, and have a 7% win percentage this season.

[Dipre]

You said baseball is the most flawed of any sport. You began the comparisons' date=' and I don't believe the facts support that.[/quote']

 

It is.

 

The problem is that baseball is the only sport where :

 

A) Teams have no budget constraints.

 

B ) The best team does not necessarily have to win on the field.

 

My problem is that you're not trying to defend baseball. You're trying to defend the Yankees.

[Dipre]

The Celtics and Lakers alone have won half of the nba titles in the last sixty years. The nets have won zero' date=' and have a 7% win percentage this season.[/quote']

 

Honest question:

 

Is that not because of superior management and better talent development?

 

Think about it with a cool head.

 

What's the only sport you can get away with building a team of high paid mercenaries (2004 Sox) to win it all in one season and get away with it?

[Emmz]

The Celtics and Lakers alone have won half of the nba titles in the last sixty years. The nets have won zero' date=' and have a 7% win percentage this season.[/quote']

 

Where were the Celtics, who won most of their titles in the 60's and 80's, in the 90's? Where were the Lakers pre-Magic? They were good in every decade, but they've fallen from the top many times. Remember pre-Gasol Lakers? Before they started arming up again, they were a .500 team at best. It's off and on. How about those Bulls? Best team of the 90's, won 6 titles in 10 years. What happened to them? You're using two examples of teams that have ALSO fallen off the cliff, but have made their way back.

[example1]

Wow' date=' more jealousy. I should just be grateful that I have the money to go watch my team? I have no right to comment that for charging fillet mignon prices and making tons of money from tens of thousands of fans just like me... not the one game a year people like you, that we expect a product commensurate with the price. Hmmm. Interesting perspective.[/quote']

 

You don't get it. You simply don't get it.

 

They charge this much money and all you get is a perpetual 95-win team that has won two WS in the past 6 years. What was I thinking!??! That's right, they charge this much money and they should be better on paper than a team that charges a lot more. Got it.

 

Remember when you accused me of sounding "whiny"?

[yankees228]

It is.

 

The problem is that baseball is the only sport where :

 

A) Teams have no budget constraints.

 

B ) The best team does not necessarily have to win on the field.

 

My problem is that you're not trying to defend baseball. You're trying to defend the Yankees.

 

While teams have no budget constraints, I think we both agree that the equality of the sport should be judged by the on field results, because that is where success and failure is determined. For whatever reason, baseball simply isn't that much different (in some cases, no different) than most other sports on the field (or court, or rink, or whatever). One of these reasons, certainly, is the fact that baseball is more of a crapshoot than any other sport, and because of that, it's a legitimate point of my argument.

 

As for your assumption, it's a false one. You shouldn't judge people's positions in arguments by their fandom. I believe I've shown an ability to keep bias out of my posts, and this instance is no different.

 

I readily admit that MLB has it's flaws, but I don't think it's much worse, or worse at all, than other sports.

[a700hitter]

I'm reading a bunch of posts trying to put the Red Sox in the same spending class as the Yankees.That's impossible' date=' since most revenue in sports these days comes from TV and marketing. [/quote']Do you have a link to support this? It is true that the Yankees make more on TV and radio revenues than any other team, but even they make most of their money from ticket sales. In 2008, they had $375 million in revenue and $217 million was attributable to ticket sales.

 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/33/baseball-values-09_New-York-Yankees_334613.html

 

The Mets were second in TV and radio revenue. They had $261 million in revenue and $144 million of that was attributable to ticket sales.

 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/33/baseball-values-09_New-York-Mets_334564.html

[Dipre]

While teams have no budget constraints, I think we both agree that the equality of the sport should be judged by the on field results, because that is where success and failure is determined. For whatever reason, baseball simply isn't that much different (in some cases, no different) than most other sports on the field (or court, or rink, or whatever). One of these reasons, certainly, is the fact that baseball is more of a crapshoot than any other sport, and because of that, it's a legitimate point of my argument.

 

As for your assumption, it's a false one. You shouldn't judge people's positions in arguments by their fandom. I believe I've shown an ability to keep bias out of my posts, and this instance is no different.

 

I readily admit that MLB has it's flaws, but I don't think it's much worse, or worse at all, than other sports.

 

This is where i disagree. The simple fact that it allows of such abuse of the money factor is a flaw that is really easy to exploit, and does not provide a fair competition field. It's easier to throw money around than to build a successful team when the amount of resources that you have is limited. That is why MLB/NBA is not an apples to apples comparison.

 

And i tell you again, if you weren't a fan of the Yankees you wouldn't stick up for the system so readily, so i firmly believe my assumption to be correct.

[jacksonianmarch]

Red Sox fans have zero ground to complain about the financial inequities of the baseball system

[yankees228]

Where were the Celtics' date=' who won most of their titles in the 60's and 80's, in the 90's? Where were the Lakers pre-Magic? They were good in every decade, but they've fallen from the top many times. Remember pre-Gasol Lakers? Before they started arming up again, they were a .500 team at best. It's off and on. How about those Bulls? Best team of the 90's, won 6 titles in 10 years. What happened to them? You're using two examples of teams that have ALSO fallen off the cliff, but have made their way back.[/quote']

 

It's worth noting that the Lakers period which you're referring to only lasted three years, and they made the playoffs in two of them.

 

Regardless, the same thing has happened to the Yankees. They missed the playoffs from 1982-1993. Some of those teams were pretty good, some were really bad, but none were good enough to make the playoffs. That has a lot to do with how tough it is to make the playoffs in baseball, but for whatever reason, baseball still isn't too different.

[Dipre]

Do you really want it fixed? Honestly' date=' ask yourself this question. As it is, you only have to beat one team with more resources than you. You have an advantage over 28 teams, and a disadvantage against one.[/quote']

 

I'm not a "sheep" of the current system.

 

I want the system to be fixed so i, as a fan of baseball, can experience high-quality baseball all around the league and a much more competitive environment.

 

Red Sox fans have zero ground to complain about the financial inequities of the baseball system

 

Jacko, please take the time to look through the thread before making inaccurate assumptions, you keep sticking your foot in your mouth. I have every right to want a fair system. Unlike you, i'm not a groupie of my team, i'm a fan of baseball.

[Palodios]

Superior management and better talent development? The core of the yankees dynasty... Petite, Rivera, Jeter, Posada, they were all developed. They have lows too.... remember the early 90s?

[Dipre]

It's worth noting that the Lakers period which you're referring to only lasted three years, and they made the playoffs in two of them.

 

Regardless, the same thing has happened to the Yankees. They missed the playoffs from 1982-1993. Some of those teams were pretty good, some were really bad, but none were good enough to make the playoffs. That has a lot to do with how tough it is to make the playoffs in baseball, but for whatever reason, baseball still isn't too different.

 

If you don't think not having budget constraints has an enormous impacts on low/mid-tier teams' difficulties in constructing a good club as opposed to the other sports, all we can do is agree to disagree.

[yankees228]

This is where i disagree. The simple fact that it allows of such abuse of the money factor is a flaw that is really easy to exploit, and does not provide a fair competition field. It's easier to throw money around than to build a successful team when the amount of resources that you have is limited. That is why MLB/NBA is not an apples to apples comparison.

 

And i tell you again, if you weren't a fan of the Yankees you wouldn't stick up for the system so readily, so i firmly believe my assumption to be correct.

 

Off the field baseball is unequal, but on the field it's no more unequal than most sports. This is fact. Like I said, baseball has it's flaws, but where it matters is on the field, and baseball provides us with results similar to those of other sports.

 

I'm not defending the system because I'm a Yankee fan. I'm defending it based on a factual platform, one that proves that, once again, it's not very different on the field than the majority of sports.

[Dipre]

Superior management and better talent development? The core of the yankees dynasty... Petite' date=' Rivera, Jeter, Posada, they were all developed. They have lows too.... remember the early 90s?[/quote']

 

Name me one WS winning team since 1995 who was not in the upper half of league payroll since 1995.

[Dipre]

Off the field baseball is unequal, but on the field it's no more unequal than most sports. This is fact. Like I said, baseball has it's flaws, but where it matters is on the field, and baseball provides us with results similar to those of other sports.

 

I'm not defending the system because I'm a Yankee fan. I'm defending it based on a factual platform, one that proves that, once again, it's not very different on the field than the majority of sports.

 

Off-the field ability to acquire talent greatly impacts on-field performance. You know this.

[yankees228]

If you don't think not having budget constraints has an enormous impacts on low/mid-tier teams' difficulties in constructing a good club as opposed to the other sports' date=' all we can do is agree to disagree.[/quote']

 

It absolutely does, but the fact remains that on the field (which is all I'm arguing), baseball isn't really different than the other sports.

[Dipre]

It absolutely does' date=' but the fact remains that on the field (which is all I'm arguing), baseball isn't really different than the other sports.[/quote']

 

Then you're only seeing the glass half-full.

[yankees228]

Off-the field ability to acquire talent greatly impacts on-field performance. You know this.

 

Absolutely, but, once again, baseball isn't that different on the field than most sports. This is fact.

[jacksonianmarch]

Florida Marlins 2003

Anaheim Angels 2002

[Dipre]

Absolutely' date=' but, once again, baseball isn't that different on the field than most sports. This is fact.[/quote']

 

But you're swerving out of the main point.

 

To build an on-the-field contender, you need to acquire impact talent. Baseball makes it nearly impossible for low/mid-tier clubs to acquire the talent they need via free agency or keep the talent they develop. This is fact.

[jacksonianmarch]

You are also missing the point entirely when you look at some of the smaller market teams. Some of them dont even try to contend, so considering them in the equation is disingenuous. Teams like TB, Florida, SD earlier in the decade, made it actually accepted that smaller market teams could win. You just need to run your business more efficiently. There is no doubt that money allows you to cover your mistakes, but it is by no means an absolute limiting factor for success

[Dipre]

Florida Marlins 2003

Anaheim Angels 2002

 

I forgot to put besides the Marlins, although i had mentioned it in an earlier post.

 

Wrong on the Angels. They were exactly 15th in payroll.

[yankees228]

But you're swerving out of the main point.

 

To build an on-the-field contender, you need to acquire impact talent. Baseball makes it nearly impossible for low/mid-tier clubs to acquire the talent they need via free agency or keep the talent they develop. This is fact.

 

How am I swerving from the main point? I acknowledge MLB's flaws. However, people are so quick to make general statements about baseball being an uneven playing field, when compared to other sports, and this simply isn't true.

 

In the end, what matters is what goes happens on the field, and baseball isn't really different than other sports. If baseball was to fix the inequality off the field, in my opinion, they would be able to reach an unprecedented level of parity. I wouldn't have a problem with them doing this. All I'm saying is that the results prove that baseball isn't really different than other sports.

[Dipre]

You are also missing the point entirely when you look at some of the smaller market teams. Some of them dont even try to contend' date=' so considering them in the equation is disingenuous. Teams like TB, Florida, SD earlier in the decade, made it actually accepted that smaller market teams could win. You just need to run your business more efficiently. There is no doubt that money allows you to cover your mistakes, but it is by no means an absolute limiting factor for success[/quote']

 

This is fallacy. You would have a point if said teams didn't lose large portions of their impact talent to the big-money clubs. A sustained run by a mid/small market team is impossible. If it's possible, show me an example.

[Dipre]

How am I swerving from the main point? I acknowledge MLB's flaws. However, people are so quick to make general statements about baseball being an uneven playing field, when compared to other sports, and this simply isn't true.

 

In the end, what matters is what goes happens on the field, and baseball isn't really different than other sports. If baseball was to fix the inequality off the field, in my opinion, they would be able to reach an unprecedented level of parity. I wouldn't have a problem with them doing this. All I'm saying is that the results prove that baseball isn't really different than other sports.

 

1995-2009. One lower-end team has won it all.

 

Many different teams, almost all of them big spenders.

 

The system harms the financially weak. There is no going around that.

[yankees228]

1995-2009. One lower-end team has won it all.

 

Many different teams, almost all of them big spenders.

 

The system harms the financially weak. There is no going around that.

 

Absolutely. But in terms of certain teams being able to have extended runs, and certain teams being unable to, for whatever reason, baseball is no different. I've never tried to argue that baseball isn't different from these other sports off the field. I acknowledge that. But on the field, where it counts, it really isn't different.

[Dipre]

Absolutely. But in terms of certain teams being able to have extended runs' date=' and certain teams being unable to, for whatever reason, baseball is no different. I've never tried to argue that baseball isn't different from these other sports off the field. I acknowledge that. But on the field, where it counts, it really isn't different.[/quote']

 

But how can it be different? This is not what i'm argiung.

 

We're going in circles.

 

I know baseball on the field is the same as every other sport, the game has to be played.

 

However, lack of budget constraints hurt small clubs financially, not allowing them to acquire impact talent like big clubs. That's it.

[yankees228]

But how can it be different? This is not what i'm argiung.

 

We're going in circles.

 

I know baseball on the field is the same as every other sport, the game has to be played.

 

However, lack of budget constraints hurt small clubs financially, not allowing them to acquire impact talent like big clubs. That's it.

 

OK, but I want to clarify, just based on your response, that baseball is not only the same based on the fact that the games need to be played on the field, but based on the fact that the results are similar on the field.