Why the best team doesn't win the World Series - Page 2

sixto · 10-02-2002, 09:25 AM

the NFL plays a 16-game season. team records are more or less random.

the NFL is really just entertainment. don't get me wrong, my keister is on the couch every sunday. it's great entertainment. but the NFL, with its built-in competitive balance and its geared-to-television packaging, it's just an unpredictable WWF. at least, i like to think it's unpredictable.

new england, atlanta, even st. louis, all came out of nowhere to reach the super bowl. currently, san diego and carolina are undefeated. every team starts every season from scratch, which makes millions of football fans happy, but it is not sport. it's entertainment.

6

Spielman · 10-02-2002, 09:53 AM

What on earth is your definition of a sport?

I read Webster's relevant definition as:
"A physical activity engaged in for pleasure.
A particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in."

What's your definition, that football is excluded?

sixto · 10-02-2002, 11:41 AM

my definition is based on the history of baseball.

success should come as a result of effective mgmt techniques, from the implementation of a sound program that pays dividends. it should not come as a result of other teams being forced to arbitrarily abandon good players. if they abandon said players, it should be a team decision, not a league one. that's still true in baseball, actually. for how long, i don't know.

it should not seem random. baltimore? new england? these are your world champs? baltimore came out of nowhere and went right back. new england may yet prove to be exactly what i'm asking for, but we'll see.

when a league is run with overall interests trump over team interests, the sport becomes entertainment. the NFL is a great product, very compelling, fun to watch. i love it. but because the league office is so strong, and manipulates things for competitive balance's sake, it's not true head-to-head competition. the NFL sets things up to make it the most interesting product for the most people.

and by the way, that's not a relevant definition. you need the definition for professional sports, not tossing a frisbee around.

the cynical side of me knows that the NFL is set up to maximize bookmaking. but who likes cynics.

6

QuestGAV · 10-02-2002, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixto
my definition is based on the history of baseball.

success should come as a result of effective mgmt techniques, from the implementation of a sound program that pays dividends. it should not come as a result of other teams being forced to arbitrarily abandon good players. if they abandon said players, it should be a team decision, not a league one. that's still true in baseball, actually. for how long, i don't know.

it should not seem random. baltimore? new england? these are your world champs?
6

New England won the Super Bowl last year as the result of effective management techniques implementing a sound program that paid dividends.

ehrie · 10-02-2002, 12:29 PM

Quote:

New England won the Super Bowl last year as the result of effective management techniques implementing a sound program that paid dividends.

And the tuck rule. And a lot of luck. And they got hot at the right time. Need I go on? What sixto is basically trying to say, I think, is that football is so random that who comes out of the season and emerges as Super Bowl champion is just as much a product of dumb luck, a couple calls, and one play in a big game as it is skill. A 16 game schedule will never tell you much of anything about the quality of a team in any sport.

Spielman · 10-02-2002, 04:00 PM

Ah.

So you don't have a definition, just a few dogmatic statements without any real cohesion.

Thanks for clearing that up.

sixto · 10-02-2002, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spielman
Ah.

So you don't have a definition, just a few dogmatic statements without any real cohesion.

Thanks for clearing that up.

i'm sorry. you were the one with the dictionary, i thought you'd just flip open to the definition of "professional sports."

i'm not sure what your position is. perhaps i could refute it better if you'd made a refutation of your own, besides the frisbee playing.

and as for the sound techniques of the patriots, i said as much - their approach remains to be evaluated. doesn't change anything re: atlanta and baltimore.

6

Scott Vibert · 10-02-2002, 04:20 PM

So Arizona's nearly going into debt is an example of effective management techniques?

Just wondering what the yard stick of effective management techniques is.

JAttractive · 10-02-2002, 05:58 PM

What is wrong with measuring top teams on a shortened schedule to determine who is best? Look at the Olympics where it is often do or die for teams there. One loss and you are out. Is it fair to say the winning team is not deserving? Sure sometimes a lowly team wins out but I kind of enjoy the pressure involved, testing a team to see if they can "rise" to the occasion.

I suppose however that baseball is unlike most physical sports where player's are capable of raising the level of their game. However there is also a strategy to building a playoff team that is often overlooked. Do you want to build the best regular season team or will you risk not making the playoffs to build a team that is designed to play there?

As far as I am concerned 162 games is more than enough to determine the top teams. Hell you could argue it is TOO long and it is the *top* teams who are "lucky" enough to escape major injuries that win out. Personally I love the wild card and would be in favour of seeing baseball playoffs EXPANDED so that the top 50% of teams make it in! *gasp*

Yes I am sure many traditionalists would love to throttle me for saying that but it all reminds of a religion where people are often steeped in the "old" ways and take forever to adapt. Consider the following:

1. The number of teams has expanded greatly over the years. If you remove the wild card again teams will have LESS of a chance to make the playoff than ever before. Even with the wildcard they probably have a lower chance than in the early days (don't quote me on that). Is it fair to penalize teams because the league expanded?

2. The other major sports all have a greater number of playoff rounds and they don't seem to suffer. In fact some would argue they are growing at the expense of baseball. Can the extra excitement playoffs bring be a part of this?

3. Players may care more about making the playoffs if they actually felt like they had a shot to make it! How difficult would it be to play for some of these lower ranked teams that year in and year out never come close? Imagine playing 162 games a year for five or more years and know game in and game out you have no chance. Can you blame them for finding something else to care about (their stats, financial concerns etc.)?

4. Small market teams are hurt most by the current structure because they need a huge payroll to have any chance of making the playoffs (in most cases). If only the elite teams make it you create a situation where large market teams have a huge advantage by the payrolls they can offer.

But the most important reason:
5. What is more exciting for a fan, knowing from the start your team has almost no chance to take a playoff spot or knowing your team is not one of the top 8 teams but may still squeak by and make a playoff spot?

I know first hand as a Blue Jay fan it was very difficult to care about the team the last few years. Why watch "meaningless" games when I have the Maple Leafs and Raptors in town as well? I know they may not have an elite team every year but I can almost guarantee they will make the playoffs and reward me for watching all season.

When the Blue Jays were in their playoff years I would watch almost every single game they played that was televised, even late west coast games. I was willing to *invest* my time because it would made the playoffs more exciting to watch having followed the team so long. But where is my reward watching a game for a non-playoff team? Sure it is still fun to enjoy a game here and there but I could watch a minor league team for that too (there used to be one in my city) or I could even just go play it myself.

Sorry but I think 162 games is a lot to ask of fans who know full well only their teams have no chance. Like or not times have changed and their is a lot more to do for excitement than in the older days of baseball. We have media like never before, numerous popular sport leagues, and all kinds of other forms of entertainment that were not readily available back then. Think of me what you will but I don't watch baseball just for the pure enjoyment of the sport. That is one aspect of why I watch it sure, but I also want a bit of excitement and drama that only the chance of winning it all can provide. I don't see anything wrong with that either when other sports manage to provide it to me (ie. hockey). So why can't baseball again?

Oh right, because some grey haired old men get offended that we are breaking with tradition? Pssh. The game can continue to die with them then, is that what they prefer? Sorry but I want it to live on long after I am in the grave and if this is the sort of idea that would bring fans back I say go for it.

(Note that while I am fairly confident it would help things I will not be arrogant enough to say it will for sure. I still would like to see fans be more open to considering it though but most whom I have talked to act as though I just committed a crime for even suggesting it.)

JAttractive · 10-02-2002, 06:00 PM

I wish I had of payed attention to how long that was getting. No one will read a post that long.

As usual I was unable to keep things brief.

sixto · 10-03-2002, 10:32 AM

i read it.

Quote:

Originally posted by JAttractive
But the most important reason:
5. What is more exciting for a fan, knowing from the start your team has almost no chance to take a playoff spot or knowing your team is not one of the top 8 teams but may still squeak by and make a playoff spot?
[/B]

this is the justification i hear the most for the NFL/start-each-season-even model, and all i'm saying is (and yes, i guess i am a traditionalist), it's not what makes sports compelling to me.

in one survivor season, they changed the rules because one tribe was more powerful than the other. wasn't fair, but would viewers have been bored if it had continued the way it had been? hell yes!

i differentiate "entertainment" and "professional sports" this way: entertainment is designed purely with the consumer in mind. pro sports are designed primarily to promote pure competition. that which is the fairest and least manipulated way to judge who's best.

if you prefer the "entertainment" model, that's fine. we differ. but why would anyone chafe at my distinctions? dunno.

giving cleveland extra games against cincinnati (i guess it's vice versa, now) for the purpose of selling more tickets? that's entertainment.

the season is not supposed to be one long pursuit of reaching the world series. holy crap, if the founders of the game had known it would become that, they never would have had such long seasons. the seasons are long because there was no TV and the only way the owners could make money was at the gate.

the world series was an afterthought - a ploy to sell tickets, a "goodwill" exhibition between the proud national league and the upstart AL. the super bowl was the same thing 60 years later.

according to bill james, in 1890 the average american saw 1 baseball game every 30 years.

if individual games don't matter, then why do we play them? why not make the season a series of world series? round robin tournaments, fields of 64? let in the buffalo bisons and the st. paul saints, make them big underdogs. what entertainment that would be when they beat the flippin' devil rays and phillies. a lot of fun, i think.

that's what football is. if i ran the NFL, they'd have 2 seasons a year. why just have 1? they'd draw just as well. people don't get sick of football.

sports are not supposed to be designed for the fan. they're supposed to be designed for the sport, for the competition. here's the rules; beat me according to them. in the modern era, that doesn't make good TV. i say, too bad.

6 (made one minor edit for clarity)

JAttractive · 10-03-2002, 11:51 AM

I can understand your viewpoint but this is not a healthy sport (like football is). Do you want to keep it the traditional way even if it may mean baseball continues to decline and perhaps one day disappear almost entirely?

Of my whole circle of friends I am the only one that watches or even cares for baseball (they prefer hockey, rugby, football, soccer, basketball etc.). None of them can understand how I can enjoy such a "boring" sport and YET these same guys did watch the Jays in their playoff runs and cheered just as loudly beside me. So they could be pulled over but they need to feel that excitement more often. Not feeling any drama for years at a time will not keep fans who are just sitting on the fence right now.

I guess you could argue "we don't want those types of fans" but I disagree. As the number of fans declines you run the risk of the sport disappearing from the major news events or sections entirely which could be a death blow to the sport and league. You also will see fewer and fewer talented players as athletes take up other more "exciting" sports leaving us with a less enjoyable product. Finally sitting at a stadium when it has 50,000 fans cheering is a hell of a lot more exciting than with 10-20,000. Even if this sort of fan is there for a different reason than I am just having the extra people at the game makes it more fun for me.

I definitely understand where you are coming from but I think it is time to adapt to baseball's sad situation. If this was an increasingly popular sport, even one maintaining it's popularity, I would agree however.

KWhit · 10-03-2002, 12:58 PM

In my opinion, there needs to be a balance. Football's parity is too over the top because of the strict salary cap.

At the start of the season, a fan has almost NO idea who the best teams will be. And even week to week, any team can pretty much beat any other team.

To me, this de-values the Super Bowl. I live in Atlanta, so it was great to see the Falcons do well in the playoffs and reach the SB. But do I think that our program was deserving? Not really. It was like it was just "our turn". At least that's the way it seemed.

I think dynasties are good for sports. The Bulls (then) and the Lakers (now) are good for the NBA. Tiger's good for golf.

The Yankees? Here's where balance needs to come in a little bit. I think they could be GREAT for baseball, but the structure of the sport is so centered on free agency that if George never wants to re-build he doesn't have to. That's the difference between baseball and the others. The Yankees could be the best team in baseball FOREVER. All they have to do is sign the best Free Agents and keep winning. In the other sports, a dynasty will eventually have to rebuild. Not in baseball.

The ideal would be somewhere in between the crap shoot that is the NFL and baseball where the Yankees can win 100 games every year.

JAttractive · 10-03-2002, 01:06 PM

I fully agree with that KWhit.

twins15 · 10-03-2002, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KWhit

The Yankees? Here's where balance needs to come in a little bit. I think they could be GREAT for baseball, but the structure of the sport is so centered on free agency that if George never wants to re-build he doesn't have to. That's the difference between baseball and the others. The Yankees could be the best team in baseball FOREVER. All they have to do is sign the best Free Agents and keep winning.

Didn't work too well for the Mets.

sixto · 10-03-2002, 08:07 PM

c - jorge posada - homegrown
2b - alfonso soriano - homegrown
ss - derek jeter - homegrown
lf - juan rivera - homegrown
cf - bernie williams - homegrown
dh - nick johnson - homegrown
sp - andy pettitte - homegrown

note where the yankees drafted strengths are - up the middle. note where they get free agents - pitching. maybe there's a model to be followed here, instead of dreaded. oh yeah. and they got one of the best 1B in the game via free agency. note that they didn't get fred mcgriff or mark grace via free agency, but the best FA.

yeah, it's nice to be the yankees and able to pay giambi whatever whatever. but the yankees also don't bother with the crummy FAs, just to have FAs. yeah, rondell white sucked, but they didn't know that when they signed him.

free agency is demonized. what should be demonized is chuck lamar and syd thrift.

twins15 · 10-03-2002, 09:03 PM

With all their injuries to the pitching staff, they might not even be in the playoffs if it weren't for Mike Mussina.

Quote:

Originally posted by sixto
yeah, it's nice to be the yankees and able to pay giambi whatever whatever. but the yankees also don't bother with the crummy FAs, just to have FAs. yeah, rondell white sucked, but they didn't know that when they signed him.

free agency is demonized. what should be demonized is chuck lamar and syd thrift. [/B]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Yankees get Sterling Hitchcock, and then resign him for $6 million a year? If the A's or Twins would do that, they would have no shot to win.

BrewedCrew · 10-03-2002, 09:06 PM

Yankees are garbage they buy championships

Garbage!!!
Brewers 2003
Oh wait the Brewers dont have any money they couldnt sell any tickets

sixto · 10-03-2002, 11:49 PM

i just don't think i understand why the yankees shouldn't have a financial advantage. they have the most fans!

look at it this way - the yankees signing/trading for crap like sterling hitchcock/raul mondesi only means that when all else fails, GMs like ed wade won't be able to go out and get one of those guys and tell his fans he tried.

i suppose we should try relating these posts to the topic. so, if the yankees don't win the world series--again--will that mean they were or were not the best team?

6

Jason Moyer · 10-04-2002, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixto
c - jorge posada - homegrown
2b - alfonso soriano - homegrown
ss - derek jeter - homegrown
lf - juan rivera - homegrown
cf - bernie williams - homegrown
dh - nick johnson - homegrown
sp - andy pettitte - homegrown

I understand this argument, but it doesn't change the fact that the Yankees spend more money on their roster than any other team. Slash their payroll down to $50 million and see how much of that homegrown talent is still wearing a Yankees uniform.

Jeter, Williams, Posada, and Petitte alone have a combined salary of about $38mil. Oakland's opening day payroll was $39mil. While I won't argue that the Yankees have a good farm system or that they should have more money than other teams because of the market they play in, it's scary that the average salary on their roster would get you Torii Hunter and Corey Koskie and still leave some change.

Edit: Here's a fun figure, maybe a gauge for just how good a GM actually is? $$$/win:

Rangers - $1,462,530
Mets - $1,261,781
Yankees - $1,222,607
Expos - $465.910
Twins - $427,926
Athletics - $385,240

I fear what Billy Beane would do as GM of the red sox (about $1.1mil per win). Something that would be interesting (but I don't have enough time to figure) would be to calculate $$$/win share for every player in the league, take the biggest bargain at each position, and see how many games a team comprised of those players would be expected to win and for what salary.

Jason

10-03-2002, 12:58 PM	#33
KWhit Major Leagues Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 413	In my opinion, there needs to be a balance. Football's parity is too over the top because of the strict salary cap. At the start of the season, a fan has almost NO idea who the best teams will be. And even week to week, any team can pretty much beat any other team. To me, this de-values the Super Bowl. I live in Atlanta, so it was great to see the Falcons do well in the playoffs and reach the SB. But do I think that our program was deserving? Not really. It was like it was just "our turn". At least that's the way it seemed. I think dynasties are good for sports. The Bulls (then) and the Lakers (now) are good for the NBA. Tiger's good for golf. The Yankees? Here's where balance needs to come in a little bit. I think they could be GREAT for baseball, but the structure of the sport is so centered on free agency that if George never wants to re-build he doesn't have to. That's the difference between baseball and the others. The Yankees could be the best team in baseball FOREVER. All they have to do is sign the best Free Agents and keep winning. In the other sports, a dynasty will eventually have to rebuild. Not in baseball. The ideal would be somewhere in between the crap shoot that is the NFL and baseball where the Yankees can win 100 games every year. __________________

10-03-2002, 09:06 PM	#38
BrewedCrew Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Minnesota Posts: 414	Yankees are garbage they buy championships Garbage!!! Brewers 2003 Oh wait the Brewers dont have any money they couldnt sell any tickets __________________

10-02-2002, 09:25 AM	#21
sixto Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,271	the NFL plays a 16-game season. team records are more or less random. the NFL is really just entertainment. don't get me wrong, my keister is on the couch every sunday. it's great entertainment. but the NFL, with its built-in competitive balance and its geared-to-television packaging, it's just an unpredictable WWF. at least, i like to think it's unpredictable. new england, atlanta, even st. louis, all came out of nowhere to reach the super bowl. currently, san diego and carolina are undefeated. every team starts every season from scratch, which makes millions of football fans happy, but it is not sport. it's entertainment. 6

10-02-2002, 09:53 AM	#22
Spielman All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 1,668	What on earth is your definition of a sport? I read Webster's relevant definition as: "A physical activity engaged in for pleasure. A particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in." What's your definition, that football is excluded?

10-02-2002, 11:41 AM	#23
sixto Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,271	my definition is based on the history of baseball. success should come as a result of effective mgmt techniques, from the implementation of a sound program that pays dividends. it should not come as a result of other teams being forced to arbitrarily abandon good players. if they abandon said players, it should be a team decision, not a league one. that's still true in baseball, actually. for how long, i don't know. it should not seem random. baltimore? new england? these are your world champs? baltimore came out of nowhere and went right back. new england may yet prove to be exactly what i'm asking for, but we'll see. when a league is run with overall interests trump over team interests, the sport becomes entertainment. the NFL is a great product, very compelling, fun to watch. i love it. but because the league office is so strong, and manipulates things for competitive balance's sake, it's not true head-to-head competition. the NFL sets things up to make it the most interesting product for the most people. and by the way, that's not a relevant definition. you need the definition for professional sports, not tossing a frisbee around. the cynical side of me knows that the NFL is set up to maximize bookmaking. but who likes cynics. 6

10-02-2002, 04:00 PM	#26
Spielman All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 1,668	Ah. So you don't have a definition, just a few dogmatic statements without any real cohesion. Thanks for clearing that up.

10-02-2002, 04:20 PM	#28
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,249	So Arizona's nearly going into debt is an example of effective management techniques? Just wondering what the yard stick of effective management techniques is.

10-02-2002, 05:58 PM	#29
JAttractive All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Posts: 1,135	What is wrong with measuring top teams on a shortened schedule to determine who is best? Look at the Olympics where it is often do or die for teams there. One loss and you are out. Is it fair to say the winning team is not deserving? Sure sometimes a lowly team wins out but I kind of enjoy the pressure involved, testing a team to see if they can "rise" to the occasion. I suppose however that baseball is unlike most physical sports where player's are capable of raising the level of their game. However there is also a strategy to building a playoff team that is often overlooked. Do you want to build the best regular season team or will you risk not making the playoffs to build a team that is designed to play there? As far as I am concerned 162 games is more than enough to determine the top teams. Hell you could argue it is TOO long and it is the top teams who are "lucky" enough to escape major injuries that win out. Personally I love the wild card and would be in favour of seeing baseball playoffs EXPANDED so that the top 50% of teams make it in! gasp Yes I am sure many traditionalists would love to throttle me for saying that but it all reminds of a religion where people are often steeped in the "old" ways and take forever to adapt. Consider the following: 1. The number of teams has expanded greatly over the years. If you remove the wild card again teams will have LESS of a chance to make the playoff than ever before. Even with the wildcard they probably have a lower chance than in the early days (don't quote me on that). Is it fair to penalize teams because the league expanded? 2. The other major sports all have a greater number of playoff rounds and they don't seem to suffer. In fact some would argue they are growing at the expense of baseball. Can the extra excitement playoffs bring be a part of this? 3. Players may care more about making the playoffs if they actually felt like they had a shot to make it! How difficult would it be to play for some of these lower ranked teams that year in and year out never come close? Imagine playing 162 games a year for five or more years and know game in and game out you have no chance. Can you blame them for finding something else to care about (their stats, financial concerns etc.)? 4. Small market teams are hurt most by the current structure because they need a huge payroll to have any chance of making the playoffs (in most cases). If only the elite teams make it you create a situation where large market teams have a huge advantage by the payrolls they can offer. But the most important reason: 5. What is more exciting for a fan, knowing from the start your team has almost no chance to take a playoff spot or knowing your team is not one of the top 8 teams but may still squeak by and make a playoff spot? I know first hand as a Blue Jay fan it was very difficult to care about the team the last few years. Why watch "meaningless" games when I have the Maple Leafs and Raptors in town as well? I know they may not have an elite team every year but I can almost guarantee they will make the playoffs and reward me for watching all season. When the Blue Jays were in their playoff years I would watch almost every single game they played that was televised, even late west coast games. I was willing to invest my time because it would made the playoffs more exciting to watch having followed the team so long. But where is my reward watching a game for a non-playoff team? Sure it is still fun to enjoy a game here and there but I could watch a minor league team for that too (there used to be one in my city) or I could even just go play it myself. Sorry but I think 162 games is a lot to ask of fans who know full well only their teams have no chance. Like or not times have changed and their is a lot more to do for excitement than in the older days of baseball. We have media like never before, numerous popular sport leagues, and all kinds of other forms of entertainment that were not readily available back then. Think of me what you will but I don't watch baseball just for the pure enjoyment of the sport. That is one aspect of why I watch it sure, but I also want a bit of excitement and drama that only the chance of winning it all can provide. I don't see anything wrong with that either when other sports manage to provide it to me (ie. hockey). So why can't baseball again? Oh right, because some grey haired old men get offended that we are breaking with tradition? Pssh. The game can continue to die with them then, is that what they prefer? Sorry but I want it to live on long after I am in the grave and if this is the sort of idea that would bring fans back I say go for it. (Note that while I am fairly confident it would help things I will not be arrogant enough to say it will for sure. I still would like to see fans be more open to considering it though but most whom I have talked to act as though I just committed a crime for even suggesting it.)

10-02-2002, 06:00 PM	#30
JAttractive All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Posts: 1,135	I wish I had of payed attention to how long that was getting. No one will read a post that long. As usual I was unable to keep things brief.

10-03-2002, 11:51 AM	#32
JAttractive All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Posts: 1,135	I can understand your viewpoint but this is not a healthy sport (like football is). Do you want to keep it the traditional way even if it may mean baseball continues to decline and perhaps one day disappear almost entirely? Of my whole circle of friends I am the only one that watches or even cares for baseball (they prefer hockey, rugby, football, soccer, basketball etc.). None of them can understand how I can enjoy such a "boring" sport and YET these same guys did watch the Jays in their playoff runs and cheered just as loudly beside me. So they could be pulled over but they need to feel that excitement more often. Not feeling any drama for years at a time will not keep fans who are just sitting on the fence right now. I guess you could argue "we don't want those types of fans" but I disagree. As the number of fans declines you run the risk of the sport disappearing from the major news events or sections entirely which could be a death blow to the sport and league. You also will see fewer and fewer talented players as athletes take up other more "exciting" sports leaving us with a less enjoyable product. Finally sitting at a stadium when it has 50,000 fans cheering is a hell of a lot more exciting than with 10-20,000. Even if this sort of fan is there for a different reason than I am just having the extra people at the game makes it more fun for me. I definitely understand where you are coming from but I think it is time to adapt to baseball's sad situation. If this was an increasingly popular sport, even one maintaining it's popularity, I would agree however.

10-03-2002, 01:06 PM	#34
JAttractive All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Posts: 1,135	I fully agree with that KWhit.

10-03-2002, 08:07 PM	#36
sixto Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,271	c - jorge posada - homegrown 2b - alfonso soriano - homegrown ss - derek jeter - homegrown lf - juan rivera - homegrown cf - bernie williams - homegrown dh - nick johnson - homegrown sp - andy pettitte - homegrown note where the yankees drafted strengths are - up the middle. note where they get free agents - pitching. maybe there's a model to be followed here, instead of dreaded. oh yeah. and they got one of the best 1B in the game via free agency. note that they didn't get fred mcgriff or mark grace via free agency, but the best FA. yeah, it's nice to be the yankees and able to pay giambi whatever whatever. but the yankees also don't bother with the crummy FAs, just to have FAs. yeah, rondell white sucked, but they didn't know that when they signed him. free agency is demonized. what should be demonized is chuck lamar and syd thrift.

10-03-2002, 11:49 PM	#39
sixto Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,271	i just don't think i understand why the yankees shouldn't have a financial advantage. they have the most fans! look at it this way - the yankees signing/trading for crap like sterling hitchcock/raul mondesi only means that when all else fails, GMs like ed wade won't be able to go out and get one of those guys and tell his fans he tried. i suppose we should try relating these posts to the topic. so, if the yankees don't win the world series--again--will that mean they were or were not the best team? 6