Steff Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 You are saying the Twins offense was better than the Yankees? The stats say so. Pierzynski, Stewart, Mientkiewicz, Jones. All in the top 40. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithFranklin Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Baseball will collapse unless the following is done.. Generous Salary Cap ( I would say about $100-$110 Million Good size minimum Salary level (say about $70 Million) Revenue sharing I for one dont care much for baseball anymore...The Sox have completly deflated me this off season. The Cubs I have not rooted for since 94 (And they are still trying to get by without really investing for the fans) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 The stats say so. Okee dokee Guess it has to do with the Twin beating up on Central division pitching? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 You are saying the Twins offense was better than the Yankees? I don't know where you got that idea from Fan I guess it depends on what you are looking at in an offense. If you are going purely by runs scored then last year it looked like this. Boston 961 Atlanta 907 Toronto 894 Yankees 877 St Louis 876 Colorado 853 Minnesota doesn't come in for a while with 801 total runs scored. You were right the first time when you said they were pretty damn close if not the best before the ARod trade. They had the fourth best offense and added Sheff and Lofton. They also would have had Aaron Boone for the entire season if he would have stayed healthy. I don't think this deal greatly improved their offense if at all if Boone would have stayed healthy. Boone and Soriano over ARod and Cairo/Wilson? I think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Rex, I am not so sure we differ that much if at all. 50s baseball economics were different but then again one team won 8 of 10 pennents anyway. Baseball survived. What will bring reality back to the game is sheer economics. No team can spend those sums forever. Look how Arizona had to cut back its spending. Boston has a limited seating capacity and even for the Yankees there is only so much revenue that can obtained. Steinbrenner is no spring chicken either. One day in the probably near future he'll die or become incompetent and the Yankees will have new owners who won't have such deep pockets - I have no idea what his will is like or his family, but if he has a couple kids and each gets a share, they may be doing more infighting than anything else in the near forseeable future. Reality will set it. No business can run those deficits for any length of time. Steinbrenner may be spending precisely because he knows his time is limited due to actuarial tables. Not even he can spend at this rate for a sustained period over years. And the other reality - Jeter vs ARod. That team could be torn apart by dissension about who plays SS and be lucky to win 80 with its pitching. Who knows. Injuries: see Aaron Boone. As someone else very wisely said, we only play them 6 times, they will not effect our divsion race and if we get to the playoffs in a shoirt series, who knows. No team is unbeatable. On paper yes. In real life - very different. and the real fools here: Boston. Whatever they did to not let it work by the numbers, the Yankees did do and gotta give the Yankees credit for that and it is the Red Sox fans who should eb screaming. And of course Texas finished last with ARoad and Seattle won 120 without him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Steinbrenner is no spring chicken either. One day in the probably near future he'll die or become incompetent and the Yankees will have new owners who won't have such deep pockets - I have no idea what his will is like or his family, but if he has a couple kids and each gets a share, they may be doing more infighting than anything else in the near forseeable future. He has two sons on the board of directors who will take over once he croaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 He has two sons on the board of directors who will take over once he croaks. two sons!!!! what is the probability that two brothers will fight over something they both want? what is the probability that two brothers will agree on everything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 two sons!!!! what is the probability that two brothers will fight over something they both want? what is the probability that two brothers will agree on everything? Good point, but the chance that they will stick together is enough to make me sick to my stomach... :puke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 two sons!!!! what is the probability that two brothers will fight over something they both want? what is the probability that two brothers will agree on everything? No doubt they share their father's love of winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastime Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 No doubt they share their father's love of winning. That's true, but will they have the almost obsessive mentality of spending? If I was one of his sons, I would want to pocket some more that money instead of investing all of it in payroll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 The 2000 Sox scored 978 runs... guess that means they had the best offense that year.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottawa_sox Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 It's sad that greed is destroying the foundation of this sport. When kids get together to play sandlot baseball or touch football or ball hockey, teams are selected in a manner such that either side may win. This is done because it makes such fundamental sense. Too bad that the player's and owner's avarice have caused them to lose sight of what any well adjusted child can see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 No doubt they share their father's love of winning. That's true, but will they have the almost obsessive mentality of spending? If I was one of his sons, I would want to pocket some more that money instead of investing all of it in payroll. For some strange reason I think they make quite the salary.. To elaborate further.. I think George has passed along the wisdom that you must spend to make. They obviously don't hurt for much. But who knows.. maybe they are more greedy than their father and will make mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastime Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 But who knows.. maybe they are more greedy than their father and will make mistakes. We can only hope. Meanwhile, here in the Windy City, we are all hoping that Reinsdorf's and Bill Wirtz's kids do the opposite of their fathers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bones Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Like I said before the main problem in baseball is not the Yankees spending over a hundred million dollars more than other teams, the Yanks still will have to play the games just like everyone else, but the main problem is the lack of resources for some teams. Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, etc. have no chance to compete with everyone else because of their lack of resources. That's why I am all for increased revenue sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 We do need a cap or something. I don't care if it costs us a year of baseball, this game has some serious issues. I mean look at the Blue Jays and Orioles. They both had great offseasons, but they're in a division where they play the Yankees and Red Sox 19 times a piece. They have little to no chance of making the playoffs in that division. We're awfully lucky to be in the AL Central. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 We do need a cap or something. I think there needs to be a max and a min cap. Not so tight that teams can't resign players, but tight enough to prevent teams from pulling a Spankie and going out and buying a team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 That's why I am all for increased revenue sharing. does baseball have any revenue sharing? I am just asking because I am not positive of the answer. But I vastly prefer revenue sharing to salary cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Yes the 2000 sox had the best offense in baseball with 978 runs scored. It is the team that scores the most runs, because runs go up on the scoreboard. Sacrifice bunts, walks, HBP (taking one for the team), hustling for the extra base, stealing bases...none of these count against your BA, but none of them improve it either. It's all about getting home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 does baseball have any revenue sharing? I am just asking because I am not positive of the answer. But I vastly prefer revenue sharing to salary cap. Yep. I believe I read that the Yankees paid just under $60 million in that and luxury tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bones Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 does baseball have any revenue sharing? I am just asking because I am not positive of the answer. But I vastly prefer revenue sharing to salary cap. Exactly. A salary cap isn't going to help these teams at the bottom that have no money to spend to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Exactly. A salary cap isn't going to help these teams at the bottom that have no money to spend to begin with. Hence the need for a minimum as well as a maximum if a cap is instituted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 if everyone is serious about change , then the only way that will happen is if us fans , the die hards , stop buying season tickets , stop going to games at all...if every ballpark in america is 3/4's empty then the owners and players will have to take notice despite all the changes to the game and the owners and players disgust of the average joe fan , w/o us , they cant survive... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Hence the need for a minimum as well as a maximum if a cap is instituted. exactly. agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Hence the need for a minimum as well as a maximum if a cap is instituted. I don't think that will help either. All the "good" players will play for the ones who spend at the top. Teams at the low end will still be talent starved cause they won't be able to pay competetively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.