Home Sports Talk

Astros continue to dismantle... Bourn to the Braves

Wow... will there be anyone left in Houston that has major league experience?
Successful dealings with shootybabitt, LarryP, Doctor K, thedutymon, billsgridirongreats, fattymacs, shagrotn77, pclpads, JMDVM, gumbyfan, itzagoner, rexvos, al032184, gregm13, californiacards3, mccardguy1, BigDaddyBowman, bigreddog, bobbyw8469, burke23, detroitfan2, drewsef, jeff8877, markmac, Goldlabels, swartz1, blee1, EarlsWorld, gseaman25, kcballboy, jimrad, leadoff4, weinhold, Mphilking, milbroco, msassin, meteoriteguy, rbeaton and gameusedhoop.

Comments

  • mcadamsmcadams Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭
    Now that the Pirates are decent, someone has to fill the shoes of National League team with no recognizable players. I give to you....the 2012 Astros (except for Carlos Lee who nobody wants)
    Successful transactions with: thedutymon, tsalems1, davidpuddy, probstein123, lodibrewfan, gododgersfan, dialj, jwgators, copperjj, larryp, hookem, boopotts, crimsontider, rogermnj, swartz1, Counselor

    Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
  • recbballrecbball Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭
    This is why baseball can't compete with football, you practically know who's going to be in the playoffs before the season starts with baseball, GET A SALARY CAP!
    For those of us not in NY, Boston or Philly baseball sucks!
    I know the Giants won last year, what coast were they on when they won something before that?
  • estangestang Posts: 1,322 ✭✭✭
    The best thing that can happen to the Astros is moving to the AL west to substantially increase their chances for making the playoffs. That park is ideal for DH mania...
    Enjoy your collection!
    Erik
  • mcadamsmcadams Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭


    << <i>This is why baseball can't compete with football, you practically know who's going to be in the playoffs before the season starts with baseball, GET A SALARY CAP!
    For those of us not in NY, Boston or Philly baseball sucks!
    I know the Giants won last year, what coast were they on when they won something before that? >>



    Your list is Boston, NY, and Philly? The Phillies literally sucked for multiple decades in a row until about 5 years ago. And NY? I assume you're just referring to the Yankees because the METS are THE case study on how money doesn't equate to championships. You could have given Omar Minaya $1bn a year to spend and the Mets still would have never been in contention. And the Yankees....the beatdown that the Marlins gave them with less than half the Yankees payroll is still fresh in my mind. The Dbacks did the same thing in '01. There are just too many examples of how money and championships aren't always aligned to argue for a salary cap in baseball.
    Successful transactions with: thedutymon, tsalems1, davidpuddy, probstein123, lodibrewfan, gododgersfan, dialj, jwgators, copperjj, larryp, hookem, boopotts, crimsontider, rogermnj, swartz1, Counselor

    Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
  • recbballrecbball Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Your list is Boston, NY, and Philly? The Phillies literally sucked for multiple decades in a row until about 5 years ago. And NY? I assume you're just referring to the Yankees because the METS are THE case study on how money doesn't equate to championships. You could have given Omar Minaya $1bn a year to spend and the Mets still would have never been in contention. And the Yankees....the beatdown that the Marlins gave them with less than half the Yankees payroll is still fresh in my mind. The Dbacks did the same thing in '01. There are just too many examples of how money and championships aren't always aligned to argue for a salary cap in baseball. >>



    The Marlins and Dbacks are examples of teams that caught lightning in a bottle. Is there anyone under 40 that remembers when the Royals, Tigers, Orioles, Brewers or Pirates were in a World series?
    Is there anyone alive that remembers the last time the Cubs were in the World series, lol.
  • DialjDialj Posts: 1,636 ✭✭
    There are just too many examples of how money and championships aren't always aligned to argue for a salary cap in baseball.

    Mike, I did a check for salaries of the either the winning or losing WS team starting in 1900 (not all team salaries were available and some only listed the top paid players), but the vast majority of those teams were in the top 2 or 3 in their league. You are right, there have been exceptions to the rule, but only a very small percentage. I found it funny that for example the 1923, 24, and 25 Yankees that Ruth's salary was 52K each year and in 1928 5 players accounted for over 145K of the team salary. The Braves were one of the highest payroll teams in the NL during their amazing streak of division championships and WS. The team with the highest payroll, might not have won the WS but they were there.

    On another note: Congratulations on the update to your 1991 Topps Desert Shield Braves set!

    Chicago Cub: 1908
    "A full mind is an empty bat." Ty Cobb

    Currently collecting 1934 Butterfinger, 1969 Nabisco, 1991 Topps Desert Shield (in PSA 9 or 10), and 1990 Donruss Learning Series (in PSA 10).
  • jdip9jdip9 Posts: 1,894 ✭✭✭
    I think we've had this discussion before, but you can't look at World Series winners/losers over the last 20 years, and point to that as "parity" in MLB. Selig makes this argument all the time, and it is completely wrong. In short series, the best team doesn't always win. Any team can get hot at the right moment, and win 11 games in October, especially if they have an ace (like the Tigers this year with Verlander).

    As rechball points out, the small market teams have VERY small windows of opportunity to compete for a title. EVERYTHING has to come together at once for a small market team to compete, and they can only stay at that level for 2-3 years tops before their younger stars hit free agency.

    Meanwhile, the Red Sox, Yankees, and Phillies, they can afford to miss on a few big money free agents, and still have enough talent to contend for the playoffs every year. The Mets are the exception to the rule on the big money side, just as the Twins (and the A's of the early 2000s) are exceptions that rule on the small market side.
  • ddfamfddfamf Posts: 507 ✭✭
    More money spent = better CHANCE to win.

    Common sense. End of story.

    Salary cap is needed.

    Salary floor is needed if revenue sharing is continued.
  • BoopottsBoopotts Posts: 6,784 ✭✭


    << <i>More money spent = better CHANCE to win.

    Common sense. End of story.

    Salary cap is needed.

    Salary floor is needed if revenue sharing is continued. >>




    FWIW, there's no evidence to suggest that a salary cap-- in any sport-- increases league attendance and TV ratings. Or at least there's no study that I've ever seen. If there is such a study I'd appreciate if someone would link to it.
  • ddfamfddfamf Posts: 507 ✭✭
    I thought the discussion was regarding money and championships, not necessarily attendance and ratings.

  • BoopottsBoopotts Posts: 6,784 ✭✭


    << <i>I thought the discussion was regarding money and championships, not necessarily attendance and ratings. >>



    Good point- I just went back through the thread, and I agree with you.
  • mcadamsmcadams Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭


    << <i>More money spent = better CHANCE to win.

    Common sense. End of story.

    Salary cap is needed.

    Salary floor is needed if revenue sharing is continued. >>



    I think what you meant to say is "More money to spend = Your choice of free agents". I agree with that. However "Your choice of free agents" does not necessarily equal "better chance to win."
    Successful transactions with: thedutymon, tsalems1, davidpuddy, probstein123, lodibrewfan, gododgersfan, dialj, jwgators, copperjj, larryp, hookem, boopotts, crimsontider, rogermnj, swartz1, Counselor

    Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
  • jdip9jdip9 Posts: 1,894 ✭✭✭
    The money gives the big market teams the ability to "screw up" a number of things, and still put a title-contending team together. Just look at Theo Epstein.
  • ddfamfddfamf Posts: 507 ✭✭
    I think what you meant to say is "More money to spend = Your choice of free agents". I agree with that. However "Your choice of free agents" does not necessarily equal "better chance to win."


    With all due respect, I wrote exactly what I meant.

    Logic will tell you that if you have your choice of free agents, before other teams do, because your team can simply offer more money, then that equals a greater opportunity to land a premiere player, thus equalling a better chance to win.
  • stownstown Posts: 11,321 ✭✭✭


    << <i>The money gives the big market teams the ability to "screw up" a number of things, and still put a title-contending team together. Just look at Theo Epstein. >>



    Also keep in mind when signing a free agent, the team loses a draft pick. We had to give up two #1s for signing Pettitte and Williams, think a #2 for Carlos. That, along with an incompetent front office, transformed the best minor league system into a pile of dog poop within a few years.

    So when a mid-level market tries to compete with the big boys for 10+ years and has a frugal Owner, well, look at the 2011 'Stros.

    image
    So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Sign In or Register to comment.