Everytime I look at the paper these guys are 9-1, 8-2 etc in the past 10 games. many may say that they have 57 games against some weak teams but hey, those are the teams ya have to beat. And they are beating them. I think that 2 teams are gonna come out of that divison come playoff time. The East is gonna have a team stay home that has 90 wins.
Ok, so I went to the game against the Cardinals tonight... I say this with no bias, the Tigers have a legitimate shot at winning the World Series this season. Aside from Chris Shelton (utter disaster), this line-up is solid from top to bottom with solid backup players. And the entire pitching staff is just great. As much as I can't stand Todd Jones and his shaky rides, even he can't ruin this bullpen.
My friends I went with were ready to leave the ballpark to go to a bar in the middle of the 9th, us trailing 6-4. There was absolutely no chance I was walking out of that park in the middle of the 9th down by 2... sure enough, bombs away Marcus Thames and the game is tied. 10 minutes later, St. Louis is toast.
So, I think I messed with Jason Isringhausen a little... I was out in left-center field because those were the crappy seats my friends were able to get... so I was watching Isringhausen warm up from the first row, so I was like 6 feet away from him in the bullpen. It didn't take more than a couple pitches before it became pretty obvious to me that he definitely tips his fastball (different front shoulder angle than his off-speed as he is releasing the ball - it's very easy for a professional hitter to pick up), and I suspect other teams have caught on which is why he's been hit so hard this season. Anyways, right after he has thrown his last warm-up pitch and the other guys in the bullpen tell him to "go get 'em Izzy", I yell out "You're tipping, you're tipping your fastball" and whether that got into his head or he just made a bad pitch or the Tigers already knew he tipped his fastball from advanced scouts, sure enough Thames rocketed a fastball straight out to left-center just a few minutes after he took the mound. While most fan comments go in one ear & out the other, you have got to think a guy who has struggled a lot this season is going to hear a comment like that and at the very least process it.
Go Tigers. Nice to see the Tigers picking up right where we left off last time we had played the Cardinals in 1968 - kicking their ass.
<< <i>Ok, so I went to the game against the Cardinals tonight... I say this with no bias, the Tigers have a legitimate shot at winning the World Series this season. Go Tigers. Nice to see the Tigers picking up right where we left off last time we had played the Cardinals in 1968 - kicking their ass. >>
You have to be excited about the Tigers pitching. The pen and the starting staff. Any time you have the pitching a World championship is within legitimate reach.
I guess everyone can now say, this team is for real!
Leyland preaches to his team, that they play 9 innings, and I believe it is the 8th time they have won a game thus far this season, being tied or behind after the 8th inning. Bonderman had another strong outing, and if only the Tigers have given him some early offense, I am sure he would have perhaps 10 or 11 wins.
I feel lucky that I got tickets to Tuesday's game, get to see the Rocket's last hurrah in Detroit, I still cannot believe there are tickets left.
Is Granderson Mr Clutch or what?
What is up with the Big League Chew, everytime the cameras go to the Detroit Tiger dugout, when they are in need of a rally, they are popping the gum, and it is working!
It is going to be a great summer, and I have quit looking out for a downfall, I personally do not see that happening.
Hey Dmitri Young, stay injured, Thames finally got a chance, and he is paying off!!!!!!!!
<< <i>Ok, so I went to the game against the Cardinals tonight... I say this with no bias, the Tigers have a legitimate shot at winning the World Series this season. Go Tigers. Nice to see the Tigers picking up right where we left off last time we had played the Cardinals in 1968 - kicking their ass. >>
You have to be excited about the Tigers pitching. The pen and the starting staff. Any time you have the pitching a World championship is within legitimate reach. >>
A W.S. berth is not out of reach as you say, and it would be wonderful to see that. I just hope they do not do any trades that will kill the farm system or take some of the young players. I hear that everyone wants Zumaya, I just hope when Leyland says he is going nowhere, that he really is staying, he is the closer of the future. Also, perhaps another veteran pitcher would be great on this team, but I would hate to trade someone with potential in this organization, for a player who will be a free agent after the season. If the Tigers keep it up, players will take notice, and many free agents would perhaps put Detroit on the list of destinations they will sign at, so the prognosis of this team in the future looks strong indeed!!!!!
Another trouncing by the Tigers... I don't know why the Astros are paying Clemens as much as they are - that team needs a lot more than a starting pitcher for them to be competitive. Their line-up is extremely weak, their bullpen is a disaster, Lidge is f'ed up in the head and his career will never be the same after that Pujols homer, can't say didn't see that one coming..
So, at the game, scoring 10 runs seemed so easy and methodical for the Tigers, and the Astros hung Wandy Rodriguez out to dry. If I were Wandy, I'd be a little pissed I was left in to throw over 100 pitches while giving up 7 runs. It was almost like they conceded the game when it was 6-4 by leaving him in there - he had absolutely nothing left by the time they pulled him.
It was great to see the Tigers come up with a win against Roger Clemens. Was an honor to see the greatest pitcher of the last 20 years pitch in person, I was at the game, and even though he always dominates my Tigers, Clemens was pulled out of the game to a standing ovation. Fans in the D should be proud of themselves!!!!!
Lets see, the Tigers lost 119 games two short years ago. Today they have the best record in baseball. I wonder how they did that without a salary cap?
For those that insist that baseball needs to have such a cap, should look no further then this team.
If baseball did anything wrong it was too much expansion in the 90's. Baseball should have stopped at 24-26 teams.
if you look at baseball year to year you will always see a few teams that have 100 loss seasons. In the 40's and 50's off the top of my head the Pirates, Phils and Braves usually could be found at the bottom.
In the AL the Browns (who won the AL flag in 44) the Athletics and Senators were the ones.
In the 60's the Expansion teams were the worst. In 69 the Mets went from the bottom to the top!. THings go in cycles it seems. baseball is usually run by mega millionaires, they play 162 games (meaning plenty of dough is available) to insist that a team can't compete in these leagues is folly.
<< <i>Lets see, the Tigers lost 119 games two short years ago. Today they have the best record in baseball. I wonder how they did that without a salary cap?
For those that insist that baseball needs to have such a cap, should look no further then this team.
If baseball did anything wrong it was too much expansion in the 90's. Baseball should have stopped at 24-26 teams.
if you look at baseball year to year you will always see a few teams that have 100 loss seasons. In the 40's and 50's off the top of my head the Pirates, Phils and Braves usually could be found at the bottom.
In the AL the Browns (who won the AL flag in 44) the Athletics and Senators were the ones.
In the 60's the Expansion teams were the worst. In 69 the Mets went from the bottom to the top!. THings go in cycles it seems. baseball is usually run by mega millionaires, they play 162 games (meaning plenty of dough is available) to insist that a team can't compete in these leagues is folly.
The Tigers are just the latest proof of this.
GO TIGERS!!
Steve >>
That's exactly like saying 'Look, Griffey hit 550 HR's without steroids, I guess that's proof enough that baseball doesn't need a steroid policy'.
The point is that without a salary cap some teams have a competitive advantage; not that some teams are destined to win every year, year in and year out.
<< <i>Lets see, the Tigers lost 119 games two short years ago. Today they have the best record in baseball. I wonder how they did that without a salary cap?
For those that insist that baseball needs to have such a cap, should look no further then this team. >>
You are missing the point as usual. The team is winning with home grown youthful talent. How much of that talent will the low revenue tigers be able to retain? THAT'S why a cap is needed. Also, the very fact that the tigers winning being a huge story furthers my claim that a cap is needed to ensure baseball's long term survival.
<< <i>If baseball did anything wrong it was too much expansion in the 90's. Baseball should have stopped at 24-26 teams. >>
No, the number of teams is fine....baseball needs a cap.
<< <i>if you look at baseball year to year you will always see a few teams that have 100 loss seasons. In the 40's and 50's off the top of my head the Pirates, Phils and Braves usually could be found at the bottom. >>
But what about teams like the D'rays, Royals, and others who are consistently bad because they have smart owners who aren't going to throw good money after bad signing overpriced free agents in an attempt to get to .500?
<< <i>In the AL the Browns (who won the AL flag in 44) the Athletics and Senators were the ones. >>
What does this have to do with anything?
<< <i>In the 60's the Expansion teams were the worst. In 69 the Mets went from the bottom to the top!. THings go in cycles it seems. baseball is usually run by mega millionaires, they play 162 games (meaning plenty of dough is available) to insist that a team can't compete in these leagues is folly. >>
When a team is spending $80 million for example, and is in the same division as a team that spends $130 and $200 million, HOW can they compete? People like YOU love the current set up because it favors the big market teams (I know you are a met and yankee 'fan', so your bias is real).
<< <i>The Tigers are just the latest proof of this. >>
Please show me any long term success and world series wins by teams not spending $100 million+. The marlins spend a ton, then fire sale because they can't afford it. Oakland wins, but never wins the whole thing. The yankees, highest payroll by far, has won 9 consecutive division titles. Boston, second highest spending, has taken second place consistently as well. The braves in their 14 year run, have placed among the top 5-10 payroll spenders every year.
The list goes on and on. Yes, there are one year aberrations like the tigers this year. But that's just what they are: aberrations.
Lets not be mistaken here ..... the Tigers have money. They have had pi$$ poor ownership for quite awhile and THAT was the reason for most of the ineptitude. It was organizational wide. Watch, the Tigers will not only be players in any big trades this year but they WILL retain their young players too.
That's exactly like saying 'Look, Griffey hit 550 HR's without steroids, I guess that's proof enough that baseball doesn't need a steroid policy'.
Boo as usual a poor analogy.
baseball is doing just fine and the latest proof is the TIGERS.
Axhole, Im not about to show you anything as you will just twist whatever is said. Go back anfd re read what I said if you need to know what anything had to do with anything. I guess you missed my whole point.
I'm still waiting for a retraction from you in the Wright thread.
MLB teams can spend dollars if they want. Some owners choose not too.
very simply, some do not mind putting a product on the field that barely breaks even.
2006 Postseason: Chicago White Sox (#4) defeat Houston Astros (#8)
ALCS: CWS (#4) defeat Anaheim Angels (#3)
NLCS: Astros (#8) defeat St. Louis Cardinals (#11)
ALDS: Angels (#3) defeat NY Yankees (#1) CWS (#4) defeat Boston Red Sox (#2)
NLDS: Astros (#8) defeat Atlanta Braves (#9) Cardinals (#11) defeat San Diego Padres (#17)
Summary, San Diego gets into the postseason with barely a winning record, and is decimated by the Cards. Every other team is top 1/3 of payroll, with #1, 2, 3, and 4 qualifying for postseason.
2005 Postseason:
World Series Red Sox (#2) d. St. Louis (#6)
ALCS Red Sox (#2) d. Yankees (#1)
NLCS: St. Louis (#6) d. Astros (#11)
ALDS: Yankees (#1) d. Twins (#20) Boston (#2) d. Angels (#4)
NLDS: St. Louis (#6) d. LA (#11) Astros (#11) d. Braves (#10)
The twins make an appearance with the 20th payroll, but are no match to the yankees and fall 3 games to 1. Again, top 1/3 payroll teams being well represented.
2004 Postseason:
World Series Florida (#25) d. NYY (#1)
ALCS: NYY (#1) d. Boston (#6)
NLCS: Florida (#25) d. Cubs (#11)
ALDS: NYY (#1) d. Twins (#18) Boston (#6) d. A's (#23)
NLDS: Florida (#25) d. Giants (#9) Cubs (#11) d. Atlanta (#3)
This is the 3 most recent years of postseason history. Withouth a doubt, the rule is "playoff teams are comprised of top 1/3 payroll clubs". Yes, the Marlins won the world series with the 25th highest payroll. Yes, it's an aberration. And yes, all of 4 players remain with the Marlins today from that world series winning team.
So, yes, the Tigers are having a phenomenal year. Yes, it's a great story. No, their odds of remaining great are not very good. One just need to look at the facts, the unbiased truth in the numbers above to see that.
As recently as 10 or so years ago the Kansas City Royals were in the top 5 in payroll. They had a ambitious owner and they filled the stands with fans.
<< <i>As recently as 10 or so years ago the Kansas City Royals were in the top 5 in payroll. They had a ambitious owner and they filled the stands with fans. >>
It has to do with the fact that you put way too much emphasis on the "small market" crutch. ANY big league team has the chance to excel with an owner who WANTS to excel.
<< <i>It has to do with the fact that you put way too much emphasis on the "small market" crutch. ANY big league team has the chance to excel with an owner who WANTS to excel. >>
For a one year, stretch, sure, that's a mathmatical possibility.
But as the numbers have shown, these small market teams don't do well year in and year out like the big payroll ones do. It's a fact. Why do you insist on arguing the numbers that are there in plain sight?
Is it because your yankees have been the biggest spending team for the better part of a decade, and have won division titles every year since they have? Coincidence? I think not.
Look, I understand your defending the current system because the advantages for the yankees are immense - but don't sit there and insult us and say that any team has a chance.
You don't think every owner wants to win? Of course they do...but many are mathmatically eliminated before the games even start.
please don't tell me that you actually believe EVERY owner in MLB WANTS to win. That is simply not true. A owner who WANTS to win will SPEND the money. There are teams who do nothing but pocket any revenue sharing they get instead of putting it back into the team.
don't tell me you think that steinbrenner wants to win more than any other team, do you? If you truly, honestly believe that, well there is no hope for you.
And if I were the owner of the royals, d'rays, or pirates, with no hopes of competing, even if I spent $80 million as opposed to $40 million, you better believe I'd put that $40 million right into my pocket too.
But back on topic. What about the team payrolls I just highlighted for you, illustrating the dominance of top 1/3 payroll teams in the playoffs over the past 3 years? I can do more if you like, but I figure 3 years is enough of a span, and its boring work.
What do you think about the yankees winning 9 straight division titles and 9 straight 'highest team payroll' titles? Think that's a coincidence?
What is so difficult to understand that not every owner has $200 million to drop on payroll, or even $60 or $80? I know it's impossible to understand, as you are a fan of a team that spends $200 million regularly, but that isn't the case for the majority of the teams.
Jones is still closing, but luckily, has not blown his last couple of outings, looking back, if not for Jones, the Tigers may be on a 20 game winning steak!
I still am proud of the fans in Detroit, giving Clemens a standing ovation as he walked off the mound, no matter how much success he has had against my Tigers, no matter how much I hated him when he pitched against my Tigers, he gets the utmost respect from myself, and about 40,000 other fans in attendance too, not to mention most everyone else around, except Mike Piazza!
Does baseball need a salary cap, most definitely, we see what happened in hockey when it was instituted. The losing of the Tigers the past decade and a half had a ton to do with nobody wanting to play here, lack of free agent signings, and flat out horrible play, but they also did not have the cash to toss at big free agents to try and bring them here, when teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can do it. Is it competitively fair that one team can afford half a dozen $10 million contracts, when another team can barely afford one? The Tigers had to essentially overpay Pudge and Ordonez to come here, and not knowing fully about his health, have now lucked out on the Ordonez gamble. The Tigers even lucked out on Pudge, for a few years, he had back problems, and luckily, he has stayed healthy on that aspect. If the gamble did not pay off and other teams made a hard push to bring him in (if he did not have back problems), I doubt Pudge would have signed on with the Tigers.
Much of the success of the Tigers comes from their young talent (Verlander, Granderson, Monroe, Zumaya), and a few players who come in as fillers, and fill the role on a consistent basis, like Infante and Thames. Seems as if anytime a regular player gets a day off, the man Leyland puts in his place, comes up big. In the batting average area, Brandon Inge would appear to be having a horrible year, but he leads the team in homers and is second in RBIs, so from what I have seen and can gander from his stats is, when he has the chance to knock people in, he does it, and his defense has been stellar to say the least. Heck, one can call him Mr. Clutch, and he has raised his average almost 20 points in the last week or two! Right now, the Tigers have the perfect compliment of veterans and youth on the team, I am completely dumbfounded on how they turned it around so far this year, and how quickly they have done it, and like many in Detroit, I am going to enjoy the ride to where it takes us. The main catalyst of the success thus far, has been Jim Leyland, ever since he lit the team up before the first west coast trip, they have responded. I do not blame Alan Trammell for the last few years, last year injuries killed them, and that turned a bright preseason, into a dismal one quickly. One thing is for sure, this team cannot be counted out at all, the last few years, I would quit watching a game when they were down a few runs, now I cannot do so, because I would miss out on something new and exciting. The team is solid, I do not see them going on a horrible losing streak, and that will not be allowed as long as Leyland is on the watch. The playoffs seem to be a definite, that remains to be seen if it holds up, barring injuries, I think it will. The Tigers will be in the mix during the trade deadline, I just hope there are not any dealings that bankrupt the future of the team.
I would still like to know why I have not seen a primetime Tigers game on ESPN!
We shall see just how many Tigers do not make the All-Star team, as far as it is concerned, making the team is not much of a big deal, but I can make arguments for these players: I-Rod, Ordonez, Granderson, Guillen, Rogers, Verlander, Zumaya, Bonderman, Robertson, and based on his clutch play and defense, Inge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everytime Axhole gets proved wrong he throws up the it's an aberration.
Face it, baseball does not need a salary cap. what it needs is more owners willing to spend the dollars needed to field a championship caliber team. Don't you think the players want to make as much as possible? A cap would diminsh that.
Stop whining about small market/ large market.
If an owner firlds a great team the fans will come. it perpetuates itself.
<< <i>That's exactly like saying 'Look, Griffey hit 550 HR's without steroids, I guess that's proof enough that baseball doesn't need a steroid policy'.
Boo as usual a poor analogy.
baseball is doing just fine and the latest proof is the TIGERS.
Axhole, Im not about to show you anything as you will just twist whatever is said. Go back anfd re read what I said if you need to know what anything had to do with anything. I guess you missed my whole point.
I'm still waiting for a retraction from you in the Wright thread.
MLB teams can spend dollars if they want. Some owners choose not too.
very simply, some do not mind putting a product on the field that barely breaks even.
Steve >>
I'll only respond to this once, because it's one of those issues where either you get it or you don't-- and if you don't get it after the proceding post then I'll assume you never will.
The Tigers are not proof that payroll disparities do not create a competitive imbalance. You seem unclear on what 'competitive unbalance' means, so let me clarify: Competitve imbalance means that with all other factors within the teams control remaining constant one team will consistently outperform the other. To wit: Let's compare the Yankees (because their payroll is high) and the D'Rays (because their payroll is low). Now assume that Brian Cashman is the GM of both teams (or, if you prefer, the GM's of both teams have equal talents). Which team, over a statistically significant number of trials, will outperform the other? The answer is simple: The Yankees. Why? For the following reasons.
1) If the Yankees make mistakes in the draft they can compensate for those mistakes in the free agent market. 2) If the Yankees make mistakes in the free agent market they can compensate for those mistakes by reentering the free agent market.
A larger revenue base, and therefore a higher payroll, allows the a team one critical luxury: i.e., it allows a team to make mistakes when acquiring players that other teams cannot make. If a team with an average annual revenue of $ 60,000,000 dollars has a payroll of $40,000,000 dollars, and that team signs a free agent for $12,000,000 that turns out to be a bust, then that team's chances of 'making up' for that mistake are essentially nil. Why? Because the margin on which they're working is so slim. Remember, that $30,0000,000 only represents the price for labor; it does NOT represent the fixed costs (stadium upkeep and so on) that every team must pay. Thus, if we assume that the fixed costs for a team with a high revenue and a team with a low revenue are essentially equal (it doesn't cost significantly more to repair the bleachers at Yankee Stadium then it does at Kaufmann Stadium), then the high payroll team will be able to dip into profit to 'fix' personnel mistakes while the low payroll team cannot do that.
And remember, this is only part of the story. The second part-- and it's the part that's more intuitively obvious-- is that a team with a higher payroll can afford better players; and better players will, on average, produce better results on the field than less talented players. The logic here is unassailable. Would you rather have 5 Pedro Martinez' in your starting rotation, and 9 A-Rods in the field, or would you rather have 5 Scott Elartons in your rotation and 9 Ken Harveys in your lineup? If your answer is the 'Martinez-ARod' combination then it stands that the team with the higher payroll is more likely to produce on the field, since that team is better than the Elarton-Harvey team.
Can a team that suffers from a competitive disadvantage win a World Series? Of course. Can a team with a competitve disadvantage sustain a long and successful run at the top of the MLB standings? It's statistically unlikely, but yes-- they can, provided they draft well and make timely free agent acquisitions. But that's just the point; the fans of teams with a competitive disadvantage shouldn't have to pin their hopes for success on a front office that's light years more intelligent and baseball savvy then their competitors. If they have an average GM, they should be able to enjoy average results. If their GM is slightly better than other GM's, then they should be able to enjoy slightly better results. In short, the disparity in talent between two teams GM's (or front offices, if you prefer) should be in direct proportion to the two teams on field results after a statistically significant number of trials.
Also, I'd be curious (not really, but I thought I should say that) to hear why you think the steroid analogy is invalid. Can a baseball player who does NOT use steroids have a more successful career than a player who DOES use them? Obviously, yes-- just compare Griffey to Caminiti. But the fact that steroids-- or a higher payroll- don't guarantee you total dominance over the rest of the field is not a justification for allowing these practices to continue. Assuming equal training regimens, equal desire and motivation, etc., two players with equal talent levels should enjoy equal success on the playing field. But if you introduce steroids into the equation we know this relationship no longer holds. Similarly for payrolls-- two teams with equally compenent GM's should be able to put equally talented teams on the field over a significant number of trials. Why do you find that so objectionable?
<< <i>It has to do with the fact that you put way too much emphasis on the "small market" crutch. ANY big league team has the chance to excel with an owner who WANTS to excel. >>
What, exactly, do you think the owner of the Kansas City Royals could do to get his team's annual revenue up a level that would allow for a $200,000,000 payroll?
<< <i>Everytime Axhole gets proved wrong he throws up the it's an aberration. >>
It *is* an aberration you twit. The fact that the playoffs are dominated by teams in the top third of payroll exemplifies exactly what an aberration it is! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
[qFace it, baseball does not need a salary cap. what it needs is more owners willing to spend the dollars needed to field a championship caliber team. Don't you think the players want to make as much as possible? A cap would diminsh that. >>
Of course the players want to make as much as possible, and, as the NFL has shown, they CAN, even with a cap. Why are you so against it? Oh wait I know why, its because your two favorite teams have a natural advantage in the current system, so you're happy as a pig in s**t to keep it that way.
<< <i>Stop whining about small market/ large market. >>
Unlike you, I don't whine. I put forward well thought out, FACT based arguments. And I'll say whatever the hell I want, thank you.
<< <i>If an owner firlds a great team the fans will come. it perpetuates itself. >>
I am going to assume that was 'fields', and yes, an owner can field a great team, but that same owner is going to see the big market teams come in and swoop up his free agents because he can't afford to keep them.
<< <i>You are welcome Boo, and it only took me 1 sentence not 1000 words.
Steve >>
LOL. Do not mistake brevity for profundity. Although if you're monosyllabic and only type 8 wpm it might be a trap that's too tempting not to fall into.
LOL. Do not mistake brevity for profundity. Although if you're monosyllabic and only type 8 wpm it might be a trap that's too tempting not to fall into.
Boo I figured that was all you could handle.
Didn't you say that you were only going to respond one time to this?
<< <i>LOL. Do not mistake brevity for profundity. Although if you're monosyllabic and only type 8 wpm it might be a trap that's too tempting not to fall into.
Boo I figured that was all you could handle.
Didn't you say that you were only going to respond one time to this?
Or would you like to continue this pissing match?
You know I'm game.
Steve >>
Nope, I'm done. Thanks for your time. I learned long ago not to argue with people that are smarter and more articulate than I am, so I'll just bow out now. Besides, it's only a p*ssing match if both guys can p*ss; otherwise it's just me making you reach for a dry towel. And what fun would that be?
Well since I would be arrested for assaulting the mentally impaired, I'll pass on your offer.
You should learn how to quit, twit, and I'll call you a twit anytime I want to, twit.
Since you refuse to speak to the evidence I pointed out, that high payroll teams HAVE an advantage over lower ones, I am going to bow out of this thread too.
May a tree fall on you, WP, and do the world a lot of good.
Nope, I'm done. Thanks for your time. I learned long ago not to argue with people that are smarter and more articulate than I am, so I'll just bow out now.
Boo I never said i was smarter. I never said I was more articulate. I never put you down. I simply stated that I felt that (IMO) you did not get it. ( The same thing you said to me)
So, basically it is ok for you to belittle me but when the same medicine is thrown back your way you get all upset?
Since you refuse to speak to the evidence I pointed out, that high payroll teams HAVE an advantage over lower ones, I am going to bow out of this thread too.
I'm just following your lead. You do that all the time.
Please take the bickering elsewhere. I don't know why so much hatred, but this is a friggin' message board not a boxing ring. You don't interact with each other outside of here, you probably don't even know each other outside of here - it's obvious by now that neither of your opinions will ever be accepted by the other person, stop trying to press the issue and killing threads. I didn't even bother to read a lot of the crap that was posted over the past day because it was all a bunch of agruing and gibberish that had absolutely nothing to do with the thread. And this doesn't require a comment in response either... no one wants to read off-topic junk.
As far as the Tigers, I would have been pretty satisfied with a 3-3 split in the games with St. Louis and Houston, but the sweep was incredible. It is suprising how dominant the entire AL has been over the NL in interleague play. Hopefully we'll take 2 of 3 from Pittsburgh this weekend.
Now if only Shelton could start hitting again... I'm really thinking a trip to AAA for 2-3 weeks would suit him well.
Josh i agree. I gave a simple opinion on how I felt the Tigers improved in 2 short years and was jumped by axhole and then boopotts.
i have tried to stay on topic here and talk about the tigers.
my previous post can attest to this.
I will however jump back when jumped.
Do you think it would be wise for the Tiger managemnt to lock these youbg guys up like the indians did 15 years ago with Thome, manny, baerga etc?
that way they could have these guys for more then 6 years.
it worked for cleveland.
Steve
edited to add:
next time axhole wants to have a pissing match in someone else's thread I'll simply copy and paste what he says to his thread and he can reply to me there.
sorry if i screwed with the thread. won't happen again.
Comments
Steve
My friends I went with were ready to leave the ballpark to go to a bar in the middle of the 9th, us trailing 6-4. There was absolutely no chance I was walking out of that park in the middle of the 9th down by 2... sure enough, bombs away Marcus Thames and the game is tied. 10 minutes later, St. Louis is toast.
So, I think I messed with Jason Isringhausen a little... I was out in left-center field because those were the crappy seats my friends were able to get... so I was watching Isringhausen warm up from the first row, so I was like 6 feet away from him in the bullpen. It didn't take more than a couple pitches before it became pretty obvious to me that he definitely tips his fastball (different front shoulder angle than his off-speed as he is releasing the ball - it's very easy for a professional hitter to pick up), and I suspect other teams have caught on which is why he's been hit so hard this season. Anyways, right after he has thrown his last warm-up pitch and the other guys in the bullpen tell him to "go get 'em Izzy", I yell out "You're tipping, you're tipping your fastball" and whether that got into his head or he just made a bad pitch or the Tigers already knew he tipped his fastball from advanced scouts, sure enough Thames rocketed a fastball straight out to left-center just a few minutes after he took the mound. While most fan comments go in one ear & out the other, you have got to think a guy who has struggled a lot this season is going to hear a comment like that and at the very least process it.
Go Tigers. Nice to see the Tigers picking up right where we left off last time we had played the Cardinals in 1968 - kicking their ass.
<< <i>Ok, so I went to the game against the Cardinals tonight... I say this with no bias, the Tigers have a legitimate shot at winning the World Series this season.
Go Tigers. Nice to see the Tigers picking up right where we left off last time we had played the Cardinals in 1968 - kicking their ass. >>
You have to be excited about the Tigers pitching. The pen and the starting staff. Any time you have the pitching a World championship is within legitimate reach.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Leyland preaches to his team, that they play 9 innings, and I believe it is the 8th time they have won a game thus far this season, being tied or behind after the 8th inning. Bonderman had another strong outing, and if only the Tigers have given him some early offense, I am sure he would have perhaps 10 or 11 wins.
I feel lucky that I got tickets to Tuesday's game, get to see the Rocket's last hurrah in Detroit, I still cannot believe there are tickets left.
Is Granderson Mr Clutch or what?
What is up with the Big League Chew, everytime the cameras go to the Detroit Tiger dugout, when they are in need of a rally, they are popping the gum, and it is working!
It is going to be a great summer, and I have quit looking out for a downfall, I personally do not see that happening.
Hey Dmitri Young, stay injured, Thames finally got a chance, and he is paying off!!!!!!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>Ok, so I went to the game against the Cardinals tonight... I say this with no bias, the Tigers have a legitimate shot at winning the World Series this season.
Go Tigers. Nice to see the Tigers picking up right where we left off last time we had played the Cardinals in 1968 - kicking their ass. >>
You have to be excited about the Tigers pitching. The pen and the starting staff. Any time you have the pitching a World championship is within legitimate reach. >>
A W.S. berth is not out of reach as you say, and it would be wonderful to see that. I just hope they do not do any trades that will kill the farm system or take some of the young players. I hear that everyone wants Zumaya, I just hope when Leyland says he is going nowhere, that he really is staying, he is the closer of the future. Also, perhaps another veteran pitcher would be great on this team, but I would hate to trade someone with potential in this organization, for a player who will be a free agent after the season. If the Tigers keep it up, players will take notice, and many free agents would perhaps put Detroit on the list of destinations they will sign at, so the prognosis of this team in the future looks strong indeed!!!!!
So, at the game, scoring 10 runs seemed so easy and methodical for the Tigers, and the Astros hung Wandy Rodriguez out to dry. If I were Wandy, I'd be a little pissed I was left in to throw over 100 pitches while giving up 7 runs. It was almost like they conceded the game when it was 6-4 by leaving him in there - he had absolutely nothing left by the time they pulled him.
For those that insist that baseball needs to have such a cap, should look no further then this team.
If baseball did anything wrong it was too much expansion in the 90's. Baseball should have stopped at 24-26 teams.
if you look at baseball year to year you will always see a few teams that have 100 loss seasons. In the 40's and 50's off the top of my head the Pirates, Phils and Braves usually could be found at the bottom.
In the AL the Browns (who won the AL flag in 44) the Athletics and Senators were the ones.
In the 60's the Expansion teams were the worst. In 69 the Mets went from the bottom to the top!. THings go in cycles it seems. baseball is usually run by mega millionaires, they play 162 games (meaning plenty of dough is available) to insist that a team can't compete in these leagues is folly.
The Tigers are just the latest proof of this.
GO TIGERS!!
Steve
<< <i>Lets see, the Tigers lost 119 games two short years ago. Today they have the best record in baseball. I wonder how they did that without a salary cap?
For those that insist that baseball needs to have such a cap, should look no further then this team.
If baseball did anything wrong it was too much expansion in the 90's. Baseball should have stopped at 24-26 teams.
if you look at baseball year to year you will always see a few teams that have 100 loss seasons. In the 40's and 50's off the top of my head the Pirates, Phils and Braves usually could be found at the bottom.
In the AL the Browns (who won the AL flag in 44) the Athletics and Senators were the ones.
In the 60's the Expansion teams were the worst. In 69 the Mets went from the bottom to the top!. THings go in cycles it seems. baseball is usually run by mega millionaires, they play 162 games (meaning plenty of dough is available) to insist that a team can't compete in these leagues is folly.
The Tigers are just the latest proof of this.
GO TIGERS!!
Steve >>
That's exactly like saying 'Look, Griffey hit 550 HR's without steroids, I guess that's proof enough that baseball doesn't need a steroid policy'.
The point is that without a salary cap some teams have a competitive advantage; not that some teams are destined to win every year, year in and year out.
<< <i>Lets see, the Tigers lost 119 games two short years ago. Today they have the best record in baseball. I wonder how they did that without a salary cap?
For those that insist that baseball needs to have such a cap, should look no further then this team. >>
You are missing the point as usual. The team is winning with home grown youthful talent. How much of that talent will the low revenue tigers be able to retain? THAT'S why a cap is needed. Also, the very fact that the tigers winning being a huge story furthers my claim that a cap is needed to ensure baseball's long term survival.
<< <i>If baseball did anything wrong it was too much expansion in the 90's. Baseball should have stopped at 24-26 teams. >>
No, the number of teams is fine....baseball needs a cap.
<< <i>if you look at baseball year to year you will always see a few teams that have 100 loss seasons. In the 40's and 50's off the top of my head the Pirates, Phils and Braves usually could be found at the bottom. >>
But what about teams like the D'rays, Royals, and others who are consistently bad because they have smart owners who aren't going to throw good money after bad signing overpriced free agents in an attempt to get to .500?
<< <i>In the AL the Browns (who won the AL flag in 44) the Athletics and Senators were the ones. >>
What does this have to do with anything?
<< <i>In the 60's the Expansion teams were the worst. In 69 the Mets went from the bottom to the top!. THings go in cycles it seems. baseball is usually run by mega millionaires, they play 162 games (meaning plenty of dough is available) to insist that a team can't compete in these leagues is folly. >>
When a team is spending $80 million for example, and is in the same division as a team that spends $130 and $200 million, HOW can they compete? People like YOU love the current set up because it favors the big market teams (I know you are a met and yankee 'fan', so your bias is real).
<< <i>The Tigers are just the latest proof of this. >>
Please show me any long term success and world series wins by teams not spending $100 million+. The marlins spend a ton, then fire sale because they can't afford it. Oakland wins, but never wins the whole thing. The yankees, highest payroll by far, has won 9 consecutive division titles. Boston, second highest spending, has taken second place consistently as well. The braves in their 14 year run, have placed among the top 5-10 payroll spenders every year.
The list goes on and on. Yes, there are one year aberrations like the tigers this year. But that's just what they are: aberrations.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Boo as usual a poor analogy.
baseball is doing just fine and the latest proof is the TIGERS.
Axhole, Im not about to show you anything as you will just twist whatever is said. Go back anfd re read what I said if you need to know what anything had to do with anything. I guess you missed my whole point.
I'm still waiting for a retraction from you in the Wright thread.
MLB teams can spend dollars if they want. Some owners choose not too.
very simply, some do not mind putting a product on the field that barely breaks even.
Steve
Ok, I'll throw you a bone.
explain to me, how in the past 5 years 9 different teams have made it to the WS.
And 5 different winners too.
Steve
Chicago White Sox (#4) defeat Houston Astros (#8)
ALCS:
CWS (#4) defeat Anaheim Angels (#3)
NLCS:
Astros (#8) defeat St. Louis Cardinals (#11)
ALDS:
Angels (#3) defeat NY Yankees (#1)
CWS (#4) defeat Boston Red Sox (#2)
NLDS:
Astros (#8) defeat Atlanta Braves (#9)
Cardinals (#11) defeat San Diego Padres (#17)
Summary, San Diego gets into the postseason with barely a winning record, and is decimated by the Cards. Every other team is top 1/3 of payroll, with #1, 2, 3, and 4 qualifying for postseason.
2005 Postseason:
World Series
Red Sox (#2) d. St. Louis (#6)
ALCS
Red Sox (#2) d. Yankees (#1)
NLCS:
St. Louis (#6) d. Astros (#11)
ALDS:
Yankees (#1) d. Twins (#20)
Boston (#2) d. Angels (#4)
NLDS:
St. Louis (#6) d. LA (#11)
Astros (#11) d. Braves (#10)
The twins make an appearance with the 20th payroll, but are no match to the yankees and fall 3 games to 1. Again, top 1/3 payroll teams being well represented.
2004 Postseason:
World Series
Florida (#25) d. NYY (#1)
ALCS:
NYY (#1) d. Boston (#6)
NLCS:
Florida (#25) d. Cubs (#11)
ALDS:
NYY (#1) d. Twins (#18)
Boston (#6) d. A's (#23)
NLDS:
Florida (#25) d. Giants (#9)
Cubs (#11) d. Atlanta (#3)
This is the 3 most recent years of postseason history. Withouth a doubt, the rule is "playoff teams are comprised of top 1/3 payroll clubs". Yes, the Marlins won the world series with the 25th highest payroll. Yes, it's an aberration. And yes, all of 4 players remain with the Marlins today from that world series winning team.
So, yes, the Tigers are having a phenomenal year. Yes, it's a great story. No, their odds of remaining great are not very good. One just need to look at the facts, the unbiased truth in the numbers above to see that.
Payroll Link
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>Axtell, you are wrong. The Tigers have the where-with-all to keep players. They just have never been able to draft or obtain them until now. >>
So you are a fortune teller too?
How can someone be wrong when it hasn't even happened yet? Quit being argumentative and look at the damned facts.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>As recently as 10 or so years ago the Kansas City Royals were in the top 5 in payroll. They had a ambitious owner and they filled the stands with fans. >>
So what does this have to do with anything?
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>It has to do with the fact that you put way too much emphasis on the "small market" crutch. ANY big league team has the chance to excel with an owner who WANTS to excel. >>
For a one year, stretch, sure, that's a mathmatical possibility.
But as the numbers have shown, these small market teams don't do well year in and year out like the big payroll ones do. It's a fact. Why do you insist on arguing the numbers that are there in plain sight?
Is it because your yankees have been the biggest spending team for the better part of a decade, and have won division titles every year since they have? Coincidence? I think not.
Look, I understand your defending the current system because the advantages for the yankees are immense - but don't sit there and insult us and say that any team has a chance.
You don't think every owner wants to win? Of course they do...but many are mathmatically eliminated before the games even start.
please don't tell me that you actually believe EVERY owner in MLB WANTS to win. That is simply not true. A owner who WANTS to win will SPEND the money. There are teams who do nothing but pocket any revenue sharing they get instead of putting it back into the team.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
don't tell me you think that steinbrenner wants to win more than any other team, do you? If you truly, honestly believe that, well there is no hope for you.
And if I were the owner of the royals, d'rays, or pirates, with no hopes of competing, even if I spent $80 million as opposed to $40 million, you better believe I'd put that $40 million right into my pocket too.
But back on topic. What about the team payrolls I just highlighted for you, illustrating the dominance of top 1/3 payroll teams in the playoffs over the past 3 years? I can do more if you like, but I figure 3 years is enough of a span, and its boring work.
What do you think about the yankees winning 9 straight division titles and 9 straight 'highest team payroll' titles? Think that's a coincidence?
What is so difficult to understand that not every owner has $200 million to drop on payroll, or even $60 or $80? I know it's impossible to understand, as you are a fan of a team that spends $200 million regularly, but that isn't the case for the majority of the teams.
I still am proud of the fans in Detroit, giving Clemens a standing ovation as he walked off the mound, no matter how much success he has had against my Tigers, no matter how much I hated him when he pitched against my Tigers, he gets the utmost respect from myself, and about 40,000 other fans in attendance too, not to mention most everyone else around, except Mike Piazza!
Does baseball need a salary cap, most definitely, we see what happened in hockey when it was instituted. The losing of the Tigers the past decade and a half had a ton to do with nobody wanting to play here, lack of free agent signings, and flat out horrible play, but they also did not have the cash to toss at big free agents to try and bring them here, when teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can do it. Is it competitively fair that one team can afford half a dozen $10 million contracts, when another team can barely afford one? The Tigers had to essentially overpay Pudge and Ordonez to come here, and not knowing fully about his health, have now lucked out on the Ordonez gamble. The Tigers even lucked out on Pudge, for a few years, he had back problems, and luckily, he has stayed healthy on that aspect. If the gamble did not pay off and other teams made a hard push to bring him in (if he did not have back problems), I doubt Pudge would have signed on with the Tigers.
Much of the success of the Tigers comes from their young talent (Verlander, Granderson, Monroe, Zumaya), and a few players who come in as fillers, and fill the role on a consistent basis, like Infante and Thames. Seems as if anytime a regular player gets a day off, the man Leyland puts in his place, comes up big. In the batting average area, Brandon Inge would appear to be having a horrible year, but he leads the team in homers and is second in RBIs, so from what I have seen and can gander from his stats is, when he has the chance to knock people in, he does it, and his defense has been stellar to say the least. Heck, one can call him Mr. Clutch, and he has raised his average almost 20 points in the last week or two! Right now, the Tigers have the perfect compliment of veterans and youth on the team, I am completely dumbfounded on how they turned it around so far this year, and how quickly they have done it, and like many in Detroit, I am going to enjoy the ride to where it takes us. The main catalyst of the success thus far, has been Jim Leyland, ever since he lit the team up before the first west coast trip, they have responded. I do not blame Alan Trammell for the last few years, last year injuries killed them, and that turned a bright preseason, into a dismal one quickly. One thing is for sure, this team cannot be counted out at all, the last few years, I would quit watching a game when they were down a few runs, now I cannot do so, because I would miss out on something new and exciting. The team is solid, I do not see them going on a horrible losing streak, and that will not be allowed as long as Leyland is on the watch. The playoffs seem to be a definite, that remains to be seen if it holds up, barring injuries, I think it will. The Tigers will be in the mix during the trade deadline, I just hope there are not any dealings that bankrupt the future of the team.
I would still like to know why I have not seen a primetime Tigers game on ESPN!
We shall see just how many Tigers do not make the All-Star team, as far as it is concerned, making the team is not much of a big deal, but I can make arguments for these players: I-Rod, Ordonez, Granderson, Guillen, Rogers, Verlander, Zumaya, Bonderman, Robertson, and based on his clutch play and defense, Inge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Face it, baseball does not need a salary cap. what it needs is more owners willing to spend the dollars needed to field a championship caliber team. Don't you think the players want to make as much as possible? A cap would diminsh that.
Stop whining about small market/ large market.
If an owner firlds a great team the fans will come. it perpetuates itself.
Steve
<< <i>That's exactly like saying 'Look, Griffey hit 550 HR's without steroids, I guess that's proof enough that baseball doesn't need a steroid policy'.
Boo as usual a poor analogy.
baseball is doing just fine and the latest proof is the TIGERS.
Axhole, Im not about to show you anything as you will just twist whatever is said. Go back anfd re read what I said if you need to know what anything had to do with anything. I guess you missed my whole point.
I'm still waiting for a retraction from you in the Wright thread.
MLB teams can spend dollars if they want. Some owners choose not too.
very simply, some do not mind putting a product on the field that barely breaks even.
Steve >>
I'll only respond to this once, because it's one of those issues where either you get it or you don't-- and if you don't get it after the proceding post then I'll assume you never will.
The Tigers are not proof that payroll disparities do not create a competitive imbalance. You seem unclear on what 'competitive unbalance' means, so let me clarify: Competitve imbalance means that with all other factors within the teams control remaining constant one team will consistently outperform the other. To wit: Let's compare the Yankees (because their payroll is high) and the D'Rays (because their payroll is low). Now assume that Brian Cashman is the GM of both teams (or, if you prefer, the GM's of both teams have equal talents). Which team, over a statistically significant number of trials, will outperform the other? The answer is simple: The Yankees. Why? For the following reasons.
1) If the Yankees make mistakes in the draft they can compensate for those mistakes in the free agent market.
2) If the Yankees make mistakes in the free agent market they can compensate for those mistakes by reentering the free agent market.
A larger revenue base, and therefore a higher payroll, allows the a team one critical luxury: i.e., it allows a team to make mistakes when acquiring players that other teams cannot make. If a team with an average annual revenue of $ 60,000,000 dollars has a payroll of $40,000,000 dollars, and that team signs a free agent for $12,000,000 that turns out to be a bust, then that team's chances of 'making up' for that mistake are essentially nil. Why? Because the margin on which they're working is so slim. Remember, that $30,0000,000 only represents the price for labor; it does NOT represent the fixed costs (stadium upkeep and so on) that every team must pay. Thus, if we assume that the fixed costs for a team with a high revenue and a team with a low revenue are essentially equal (it doesn't cost significantly more to repair the bleachers at Yankee Stadium then it does at Kaufmann Stadium), then the high payroll team will be able to dip into profit to 'fix' personnel mistakes while the low payroll team cannot do that.
And remember, this is only part of the story. The second part-- and it's the part that's more intuitively obvious-- is that a team with a higher payroll can afford better players; and better players will, on average, produce better results on the field than less talented players. The logic here is unassailable. Would you rather have 5 Pedro Martinez' in your starting rotation, and 9 A-Rods in the field, or would you rather have 5 Scott Elartons in your rotation and 9 Ken Harveys in your lineup? If your answer is the 'Martinez-ARod' combination then it stands that the team with the higher payroll is more likely to produce on the field, since that team is better than the Elarton-Harvey team.
Can a team that suffers from a competitive disadvantage win a World Series? Of course. Can a team with a competitve disadvantage sustain a long and successful run at the top of the MLB standings? It's statistically unlikely, but yes-- they can, provided they draft well and make timely free agent acquisitions. But that's just the point; the fans of teams with a competitive disadvantage shouldn't have to pin their hopes for success on a front office that's light years more intelligent and baseball savvy then their competitors. If they have an average GM, they should be able to enjoy average results. If their GM is slightly better than other GM's, then they should be able to enjoy slightly better results. In short, the disparity in talent between two teams GM's (or front offices, if you prefer) should be in direct proportion to the two teams on field results after a statistically significant number of trials.
Also, I'd be curious (not really, but I thought I should say that) to hear why you think the steroid analogy is invalid. Can a baseball player who does NOT use steroids have a more successful career than a player who DOES use them? Obviously, yes-- just compare Griffey to Caminiti. But the fact that steroids-- or a higher payroll- don't guarantee you total dominance over the rest of the field is not a justification for allowing these practices to continue. Assuming equal training regimens, equal desire and motivation, etc., two players with equal talent levels should enjoy equal success on the playing field. But if you introduce steroids into the equation we know this relationship no longer holds. Similarly for payrolls-- two teams with equally compenent GM's should be able to put equally talented teams on the field over a significant number of trials. Why do you find that so objectionable?
<< <i>It has to do with the fact that you put way too much emphasis on the "small market" crutch. ANY big league team has the chance to excel with an owner who WANTS to excel. >>
What, exactly, do you think the owner of the Kansas City Royals could do to get his team's annual revenue up a level that would allow for a $200,000,000 payroll?
Steve
<< <i>Everytime Axhole gets proved wrong he throws up the it's an aberration. >>
It *is* an aberration you twit. The fact that the playoffs are dominated by teams in the top third of payroll exemplifies exactly what an aberration it is! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
[qFace it, baseball does not need a salary cap. what it needs is more owners willing to spend the dollars needed to field a championship caliber team. Don't you think the players want to make as much as possible? A cap would diminsh that. >>
Of course the players want to make as much as possible, and, as the NFL has shown, they CAN, even with a cap. Why are you so against it? Oh wait I know why, its because your two favorite teams have a natural advantage in the current system, so you're happy as a pig in s**t to keep it that way.
<< <i>Stop whining about small market/ large market. >>
Unlike you, I don't whine. I put forward well thought out, FACT based arguments. And I'll say whatever the hell I want, thank you.
<< <i>If an owner firlds a great team the fans will come. it perpetuates itself. >>
I am going to assume that was 'fields', and yes, an owner can field a great team, but that same owner is going to see the big market teams come in and swoop up his free agents because he can't afford to keep them.
You really believe that crap you spew, don't you?
<< <i>Actually boo i feel that it is you that does not get it.
Steve >>
Well, what can I say? That's a very eloquent refutation. Thanks for setting me on to the righteous path.
Steve
Axhole, I HERE you.
< chuckle>
Steve
When faced with overwhelming evidence, you become a blathering pile of jello.
You should get some rest and try again tomorrow.
<< <i>You are welcome Boo, and it only took me 1 sentence not 1000 words.
Steve >>
LOL. Do not mistake brevity for profundity. Although if you're monosyllabic and only type 8 wpm it might be a trap that's too tempting not to fall into.
I HERE ya .
invariably.
i should add that when you are proved wrong you run and hide. (Wright thread) among others.
Steve
Boo I figured that was all you could handle.
Didn't you say that you were only going to respond one time to this?
Or would you like to continue this pissing match?
You know I'm game.
Steve
Yes, I used invariably wrong.
Yes, I used 'here' when I meant to use 'hear'.
What does this have to do with you not having a clue about ANYTHING sports related?
Invariably I'd like to swing a 2 x 4 and smack you in the dome. How's that sound?
<< <i>LOL. Do not mistake brevity for profundity. Although if you're monosyllabic and only type 8 wpm it might be a trap that's too tempting not to fall into.
Boo I figured that was all you could handle.
Didn't you say that you were only going to respond one time to this?
Or would you like to continue this pissing match?
You know I'm game.
Steve >>
Nope, I'm done. Thanks for your time. I learned long ago not to argue with people that are smarter and more articulate than I am, so I'll just bow out now. Besides, it's only a p*ssing match if both guys can p*ss; otherwise it's just me making you reach for a dry towel. And what fun would that be?
Best,
Guy
Are you freaking serious?
Anyday you want to meet up axhole Ill slap your freaking dome inside and out.
Steve
You should learn how to quit, twit, and I'll call you a twit anytime I want to, twit.
Since you refuse to speak to the evidence I pointed out, that high payroll teams HAVE an advantage over lower ones, I am going to bow out of this thread too.
May a tree fall on you, WP, and do the world a lot of good.
Boo I never said i was smarter. I never said I was more articulate. I never put you down. I simply stated that I felt that (IMO) you did not get it. ( The same thing you said to me)
So, basically it is ok for you to belittle me but when the same medicine is thrown back your way you get all upset?
Steve
Typical Axhole remarks. Shoots his mouth off that he will fight, then when called out backs down like the PUNK he is.
So baxically it is ok for you to ridicule others yet when you get a lil back you cry?
I have seen punks like you all my life.
Go hide now Axhole.
Steve
I'm just following your lead. You do that all the time.
Steve
<< <i>Back to our original program!! 6 in a row, 2 shouts in a row!! >>
The tigers, white sox, and twins have all been on fire as of late. If you're a twins fan, you have to wonder what you gotta do to move up.
Saw a stat that the twins are something like 14-2 over their last 16, and have gained all of 1/2 game. Unreal the way that division is playing.
I hope that the team can stay together, but the realist in me knows that when the big dollar teams come knocking, that team's gonna be torn apart.
or is that not an option?
Steve
As far as the Tigers, I would have been pretty satisfied with a 3-3 split in the games with St. Louis and Houston, but the sweep was incredible. It is suprising how dominant the entire AL has been over the NL in interleague play. Hopefully we'll take 2 of 3 from Pittsburgh this weekend.
Now if only Shelton could start hitting again... I'm really thinking a trip to AAA for 2-3 weeks would suit him well.
i have tried to stay on topic here and talk about the tigers.
my previous post can attest to this.
I will however jump back when jumped.
Do you think it would be wise for the Tiger managemnt to lock these youbg guys up like the indians did 15 years ago with Thome, manny, baerga etc?
that way they could have these guys for more then 6 years.
it worked for cleveland.
Steve
edited to add:
next time axhole wants to have a pissing match in someone else's thread I'll simply copy and paste what he says to his thread and he can reply to me there.
sorry if i screwed with the thread. won't happen again.
Steve