False. 2003Quote:
Originally Posted by oriole^
Printable View
False. 2003Quote:
Originally Posted by oriole^
Not spending it wisely will guarantee you don'tQuote:
Originally Posted by oriole^
False. Julio Lugo $8.25 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
Consistantly spending it unwisely will guarantee you don't?Code:Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
2007 31 BOS AL 147 570 71 135 36 2 8 73 33 6 48 82 .237 .294 .349 65 199 8 4 0 0 9
1 bad contract on a team isn't exactly what I would call not spending it wiselyQuote:
Originally Posted by filihok
have the royals sign him to that deal and tell me it wont crush them. you are looking at 1 figure not the % of that contract. in teh red sox thats about 5-8 % of their payroll. on KC thats about 10-20% of the payroll.. BIG difference.
Its liek this... The yanks made a $10 million a year mistake with pavano. Thats like a 1-3 million mistake with the royals. BIG difference.
reggie sanders comes to my mind when you say that about the royals (gil meche, while not a bad pitcher, isn't exactly lighting it up like one would expect of a player who brings in that percentage of a team's payroll, roughly a quarter of the payroll & not sure how much guillen is making for them either, but that could be a black hole as well)...but were they competing before making the bad contracts either?
the brewers aren't exactly a large market team & they seem to have survived their eric gagne contract quite well (nearly 14% of their payroll)
dbacks aren't lighting up the baseball universe right now, but they're ahead in their division race while spending nearly 12% of their payroll on doug davis (whip over 1.5, era of 4.6)
As others said, not necessarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by oriole^
The question is overall payroll, not a few individual out-of-whack contracts.
People tend to sling around individual examples of bargain basement teams or players made good, and say that it "proves" money can't buy you a pennant - with the implication that it doesn't have any effect. This is not only wrong, but dangerously so, because it's probably the biggest problem baseball faces.
Logically, teams have a certain range they're going to be in. You can test it with BBM - run the same season 100 times. How many times do the Red Sox finish last? How many times do the Royals finish first? The reality is, the Red Sox won't always win the Series, but the amount that they spend pretty much guarantees they'll be one of the top eight teams in the league; they won't finish under .500. The Royals may not be in the basement, but they won't be much better than the 20th best team in the league and won't win more than 83 games or so.
Obviously, if we are speaking generally, shrewd trading, players who take good care of their bodies and skills as they age, and various strategies all have an effect on performance...but the short way of doing all of that is money. With a lot of effort and coaching and training and luck, I could possibly get Kevin Millar to hit 25 HRs...or I could go out and buy Prince Fielder from the small-market Brewers and pretty much relax and have my coaches concentrate on something else for a while.
In fact, in the case of teams like the Yankees over a 35-year period or so, the only difference between them and an average team is how often they purchase players and what quality those players are.
I say it's the biggest problem because we all like to believe that on Opening Day, there are 30 teams with the same chance to win the World Series, and that simply isn't the case. There are perhaps eight, and the easiest way to determine who they are is by their payroll expenditures. Beyond that, the numbers are just simply too far out of alignment.
So, no, you can't buy your way to a pennant - but you can buy the chance to get one.
Spending a lot of money, though, isn't necessarily going to get you into the playoffs, and spending little money isn't necessarily going to prevent you from getting into the playoffs.
Honestly, the only thing that matters is how well you spend the money available to you. The Twins and Athletics consistently win with relatively low payrolls. This doesn't "prove" that money can't buy you a pennant, nor does it imply that money doesn't have an effect. It proves that money isn't absolutely necessary, and implies that "poor" teams have just a good a chance at making the playoffs as rich teams do, because money doesn't win games, good players win games, and teams without much money can assemble good times by drafting and developing well, finding bargain free agents, making good trades, etc.
Does money help? Of course. But it's not the be-all-and-end-all. There are high-priced teams that suck because the money spent was done so in a stupid way (see: Seattle Mariners) and there are low-priced teams that are good because they spent the little money available to them smartly.
the biggest think I have seen is that the smaller market teams are not as willing to go that extra year or 2 with a player. for example... the yankees of old would ahve offered Lowel the 4 year deal he wanted. The Red Sox said we are offering a 3 year deal... we want you back but on OUR terms. It seems now that players are not as able to force a teams hands. This is causing the smaller market teams to get MORE for their your arbitratio elligable players Willis/Cabrerra and Texeria for example. These guys were worth more than they used to be because there are less f/a out there. Players are seeing that teams dont want to give a 7 year 140+ million contract like Giambi got. Its not like they are not making $$$ is that players see the way it is going and its in their best intrest when they are younger to get locked up for a few years (mccan,longoria,etc)
My thought over the next 5-10 years is that the league is going to start balancing itself bck out.
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Well, no, they don't, and you give the reason right afterwards:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
And good players cost money - or if they don't, they will. That's just the reality of baseball with free agency...or any business, really. I'm not making a value judgment, I'm just stating the reality of the situation. If you are the Marlins or Expos or Royals, you may have them for a while and may win and compete for a while, but sooner or later, they will ask for the paychecks, and you will have to let them go to the Yankees or Dodgers or Red Sox.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
And these teams bought enough Pedro Martinez's and Alex Rodriguez's to insure that they'll never be affected by competitive balance - so they can afford to wait for C.C. Sabathia...
Look, we're agreed that $bucks are not the be-all and end-all of baseball, and there are strategies to mitigate what happens when you don't have it, but saying things like poor teams can compete on the same level as rich teams simply isn't true. Baseball isn't balanced, and what's needed to get it to be so is revenue sharing and a salary cap (and floor!), and those are concepts that directly involve money.
well the $$$ weill remain relativly far apart but I think as far as parity it has already started. I mean look at AZ, FLA is decent, TB, Minny, etc. I mean the yanks, sox, braves (not as much anymore) LA's, etc are still going to be good but they wont jsut be manhandeling teams anymore
Baseball has amazing parity right now.
As for salary caps and what not, I'm strongly opposed to any salary cap. More revenue sharing would be fine, but baseball is REALLY balanced right now, and I don't think anything strict like a salary cap needs to be implemented.
100% agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM