THE Red Sox Thread (and Yankees too!)

[CMH]

Originally Posted by Gastric ReFlux

All we can do now is report the posts to the mods! Keep'em busy, I say.

Post reported for instigating.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Anachronism

Going home to that band box of a park isn't going to help them face the Yankee power!

I agree with everything else you said other than here. The Yankees have better home run power. But, the sox are built to hit in that park. I'll have to admit, I've been pretty against the 2-3-2 format in the past, but in this case I feel pretty good about it.

[Anachronism]

Yeah... as I said CommishJoe, I know you didnt mean it to be condescending - but it came across as such

As for Wakefield... he sure didn't strike fear into the hearts of the Yankees in Game 1.... surrendering three hits in a single inning including that homer.... Wakefield is the type of pitcher that teams will either struggle against, or they will sit back and pound the bejeezus out of him... Wakefield's stats against the Yankees were fairly good this year (ERA under 2) but then you realize that there were also 5 unearned runs scored against him... which is why he has only 1 win.

Besides that, Wakefield at the end of the year was struggling - tired maybe.

And Luis - I'd agree with you *IF* the Sox had been hitting Yankee pitching. You need to hit the ball to take advantage of being "built for the park" - and from what I've seen I just don't have the confidence in the Sox I first had. Yes, they did get a few hits in game 1 - but everyone knows when you have a large lead you pitch a bit differently. You prefer to have the ball hit to your fielders as opposed to walking batters.

I believed that the Sox pitching was what was going to carry this series for them, because I felt that over all offensively the two teams matched up very well. I can't believe how things have turned completely around. If you had to choose between two starters (Martinez and Lieber) to start a game for you, would you have chosen Lieber?!?

I don't get it. With two loses in NY, and the Boston bats going silent, I have to think that the Yankees are in the Boston player's minds again... I see it all the time with the Ottawa Senators - vastly superior team to the Leafs, and yet we kick their asses EVERY year in the playoffs. Go figure.

Boston doesn't just need to win game 3, they need to win convincingly to regain momentum. They then need to take game four to tie the series up. Right now I can't see the Yankees losing 4 of the next 5 games. But winning 2 of 5? I can see the Yankees doing that EASILY....

[MannyTrillo]

Originally Posted by CardinalMan

Sorry, I stopped reading here. This is why I dislike Red Sox fans, they accuse the Yanks of "buying" championships when their team tries to do the exact same thing, difference being the Sox fail miserably. Only two teams in MLB have $100+ million dollar payrolls and they're both playing in this series. Sorry Sox fans you no longer have the moral high ground, you can't complain about the Yankees payroll when you're everybit as guilty as they are.

It's true that the Red Sox have the second highest payroll in MLB in 2004, but that's not typically the case. In 2003, for example, the Red Sox had the 5th highest payroll (just $3m more than the Cardinals!).

It is certainly true that there are big revenue teams and small revenue teams, and I can understand resentment from small revenue teams towards the ones with more money. But the Red Sox are by no means signficantly richer than Texas, LA, the Mets, Atlanta, St. Louis, Anaheim, etc. And the Yankees are simply in a totally different category from everyone else. The resentment comes not from the notion that the Yankees are "throwing money" around and that is somehow immoral, it's that the Yankees are operating at an unfair advantage over every single othe team in the league. Every single year, they can afford to sign the best available players at whatever position they need help at. Sure the Sox can pay Manny Ramirez, and a team like Anaheim can sign Vlad, but they can't make a multiple moves like that every single year like the Yankees can.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by MannyTrillo

It's true that the Red Sox have the second highest payroll in MLB in 2004, but that's not typically the case. In 2003, for example, the Red Sox had the 5th highest payroll (just $3m more than the Cardinals!).

It is certainly true that there are big revenue teams and small revenue teams, and I can understand resentment from small revenue teams towards the ones with more money. But the Red Sox are by no means signficantly richer than Texas, LA, the Mets, Atlanta, St. Louis, Anaheim, etc. And the Yankees are simply in a totally different category from everyone else. The resentment comes not from the notion that the Yankees are "throwing money" around and that is somehow immoral, it's that the Yankees are operating at an unfair advantage over every single othe team in the league. Every single year, they can afford to sign the best available players at whatever position they need help at. Sure the Sox can pay Manny Ramirez, and a team like Anaheim can sign Vlad, but they can't make a multiple moves like that every single year like the Yankees can.

every owner in the league is capable of spending like George. they dont because the see their team as a business venture. winning should be > making money/not losing money but its make $/not lose $ > winning for 90% of the owners.

[draven085]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

every owner in the league is capable of spending like George. they dont because the see their team as a business venture. winning should be > making money/not losing money but its make $/not lose $ > winning for 90% of the owners.

News flash: not every team generates the same revenue that the Yankees do. Steinbrenner's Yankees generate enough cash flow for him to be able to pay for the team's expenses without having to dip into personal stash of wealth for his team's expenses. Expecting other owners to spend their personal fortunes in effort to compete with the Yankees financially is being unrealistic.

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by Anachronism

Yeah... as I said CommishJoe, I know you didnt mean it to be condescending - but it came across as such

Boston doesn't just need to win game 3, they need to win convincingly to regain momentum. They then need to take game four to tie the series up. Right now I can't see the Yankees losing 4 of the next 5 games. But winning 2 of 5? I can see the Yankees doing that EASILY....

Thanks for telling me. It gave me the chance to explain my post.

I tend to take things one game at a time. Right now, I have to hope for 5-6 solid innings by Brown, and enough runs off Arroyo/long relief to give the bullpen enough of a cushion for their probable mistakes. I REALLY dont want to see Mariano be forced to pitch 2 innings tomorrow night.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

every owner in the league is capable of spending like George. they dont because the see their team as a business venture. winning should be > making money/not losing money but its make $/not lose $ > winning for 90% of the owners.

Good point... This is why the Royals organization is raking in $140 Million of profits every year by keeping a $40 Mil payroll.

Wow... not even close. Between YES and merchandising, their revenues FAR exceed the rest of the league.

EDIT: Not using it as an excuse... I'm not in the camp that bitches about that considering the way they built their organization throughout the 90's... Just correcting a disgustingly erroneous statement.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by draven085

News flash: not every team generates the same revenue that the Yankees do. Steinbrenner's Yankees generate enough cash flow for him to be able to pay for the team's expenses without having to dip into personal stash of wealth for his team's expenses. Expecting other owners to spend their personal fortunes in effort to compete with the Yankees financially is being unrealistic.

News Flash: its basic economics, spend a lot to generate more

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

News Flash: its basic economics, spend a lot to generate more

More basic economics: You make the investments that your market dictates. Just because a team like the Brewers creates a network dedicated to all aspects of the team doesn't mean it's going to generate revenue.

For that matter... the DRays could go out and spend all they want and they still aren't going to sell out that stadium. If there's less of a market, there's very little that can be done about it short term. And even long term, Tampa is never going to have the market that New York or Boston or even Los Angeles have.

[jazzrack]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

I wouldn't say that yet. The Sox have a big advantage in game 4. If they pull out game 3, it's a pretty good possibility that this series is tied. I like where the Yankees are sitting now, but this is by no means over.

I understand your point but i disagree, I called the series for the Yucks in 5 and i still think that is what it will be, the series is playing out pretty much like i figured (well, i didn't think lieber would pitch so well, but who did)

and if this was the post some thought condesending, i didn't find it so.

but i stand by my turn out the lights comment. you all can now go watch the Cards/stros series knowing Jazz has spoken

[MannyTrillo]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

News Flash: its basic economics, spend a lot to generate more

That's a good point. One thing a lot of people don't realize- if you spend a lot of money, it may seem like you are "losing" money. But sometimes, the money you are spending can "turn into" more money down the road. But before you go out and run up your credit card lol remember that the money you are "losing" has to be investments, not just stuff like CDs and sneakers. It's really amazing how this can work though if you are spending the money in investments.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

More basic economics: You make the investments that your market dictates. Just because a team like the Brewers creates a network dedicated to all aspects of the team doesn't mean it's going to generate revenue.

For that matter... the DRays could go out and spend all they want and they still aren't going to sell out that stadium. If there's less of a market, there's very little that can be done about it short term. And even long term, Tampa is never going to have the market that New York or Boston or even Los Angeles have.

of course the spending has to be in the right areas. i thought that would go without saying. you cant just start a TV network without having a quality team to show. spending $ on the best possible players should be the #1 priority.

if you transplanted the yankee roster to TB or MIL, then yes they would sell out.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

if you transplanted the yankee roster to TB or MIL, then yes they would sell out.

Not unless the team history followed

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by MannyTrillo

That's a good point. One thing a lot of people don't realize- if you spend a lot of money, it may seem like you are "losing" money. But sometimes, the money you are spending can "turn into" more money down the road. But before you go out and run up your credit card lol remember that the money you are "losing" has to be investments, not just stuff like CDs and sneakers. It's really amazing how this can work though if you are spending the money in investments.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Not unless the team history followed

give me a break, you're grasping at straws

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

give me a break, you're grasping at straws

I think that's a valid statement because baseball hasn't penetrated the culture in Tampa nearly as well as it has in Boston and NY... as there is no history there.

For the record, I feel the same way about bringing Boston's roster/history there. My point from the beginning has been you can't just create a market overnight just by spending as your statements have incinuated (intentionally or not).

Whether or not you agree with that logic is your decision, but the condescending response is pretty uncalled for.

[Tito]

Originally Posted by draven085

Steinbrenner's Yankees generate enough cash flow for him to be able to pay for the team's expenses without having to dip into personal stash of wealth for his team's expenses. Expecting other owners to spend their personal fortunes in effort to compete with the Yankees financially is being unrealistic.

That's true now, but in the early years, George WAS spending his own money. That was back when teams actually had individual ownership. That's near impossible now, with most teams having to answer to corporations and shareholders.

The point is, George did dip into his own stash to put a winner out there. In the mid 80's, while the Yanks were sucking and barely getting 2.3 million fans, he kept infusing cash to try to put a winner out there.

But I see your point even with these new ownership groups--why lose while spending 80 million when you could lose with 60 million? Although we had some good races this year, too many teams know on Day 1 that they are out of it. I'm actually one Yankee fan that is for changes to MLB's financial system.

[Kezzek]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

roffle

It kills me that people still don't get it when Manny mocks them.

[Elendil]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

if you transplanted the yankee roster to TB or MIL, then yes they would sell out.

Simply not true. Owners have tried this before. Look at the Orioles or the A's or the Reds. All those teams have had great runs of championships, but since the era of free agency, they've been unable to hold their high-quality teams together: their players get bought away by the Yankees and other large-market teams.

A market of 11 million+ people is always going to generate far more revenue in the long run than a market of 1-2 million. What this suggests is that the NY area should have 3-4 teams, as in the 1950s, to make the playing field more level.