Balta1701 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (Disco72 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 02:39 PM) I agree on TB but think they are more likely the exception that proves the rule. They built 'cheaply' by losing and developing draft picks, and they've been able to stay with a lower payroll by continuing to develop drafted talent. It will be curious to see how long that continues, especially because of their inability to increase payroll due to attendance issues. There's obviously going to be a limit to what the Rays can do and eventually they're either going to have to trade off a guy or two for a haul or fall back, but there's every reason to believe that they have at least a couple more years, at least with the pitching staff. The other side though is...the Rays aren't the only team who has kept losing, and yet they're the only one who has legitimately taken that losing and turned it into a period of winning. The Pirates, Royals, Orioles, etc., have had long periods of losing, but they haven't done nearly as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:42 PM) There's obviously going to be a limit to what the Rays can do and eventually they're either going to have to trade off a guy or two for a haul or fall back, but there's every reason to believe that they have at least a couple more years, at least with the pitching staff. The other side though is...the Rays aren't the only team who has kept losing, and yet they're the only one who has legitimately taken that losing and turned it into a period of winning. The Pirates, Royals, Orioles, etc., have had long periods of losing, but they haven't done nearly as well. And yet, Tampa can't draw. If I were to make a list of the teams most likely to move cities, they'd be at the top. And if they can go somewhere and get some actual crowds, their model may change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerksticks Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 So we'd have to suck for years to replenish the farm. No thanks. I like what's been done down there the last few years, especially the drafts. Morel, Viciedo, Beckham, Sale, Lillibridge, Danks, Floyd and Quentin are all cost-controlled guys we've brought up in the last few years. Those are all major league players in some capacity with some looking like stars. We're doing ok. Our pitching staff is so good that we have to try to win next year with some of these kids. I wish the pressure wasn't so high on them here but it is what it is. The Swisher and Griffey trades are the only ones I don't like. Swisher looked like a good player but didn't fit in here. I give KW a pass there. You can't predict a guy won't fit in. He didn't have a Milton Bradley reputation or anything, he just sucked. Griffey for Masset was just retarded though. Peavy trade is a winner for us if he pitches. Only Richard is pitching for them now and he sucks away from Petco. Dex Carter, Poreda and Russell all regressed this year in the minors; horribly regressed. That one looks good if The Peav gets on track. Farm seems better than ever to me even though that isn't saying much. We just have a bunch of guys who have graduated from the minors but have yet to fully dig-in up here. Middle ground sucks but whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 02:48 PM) And yet, Tampa can't draw. If I were to make a list of the teams most likely to move cities, they'd be at the top. And if they can go somewhere and get some actual crowds, their model may change. I'm torn on that one. Clearly they'd benefit from a new city, but they'd also benefit from a new ballpark in that city. OTOH, neither of those seem to be happening any time in the near future, since it's not exactly a good time for cities to be off bidding for franchises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) Its not my job. I dont work for the White Sox, so I dont know how they are going to work next season. I assume they have a plan and that they will do their best to put a winning team on the field. JR has spent more money on the Sox than any other owner has. If he feels the Sox had the money to take on Jackson, then Im not going to question him. I think Jackson is the better pitcher, so if JR has the money, Im going to take the better player. It's not just whether or not the Sox can take on the salary, it's opportunity cost. Look at the Sox not resigning Ordonez, and what they were able to do with that money. The Sox have to be better at looking at contracts and figuring if that money would not be better spent elsewhere, especially when they have a viable cheap alternative already in house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:51 PM) I'm torn on that one. Clearly they'd benefit from a new city, but they'd also benefit from a new ballpark in that city. OTOH, neither of those seem to be happening any time in the near future, since it's not exactly a good time for cities to be off bidding for franchises. I doubt they would benefit from a new ballpark. If fans aren't willing to go see them because of the ballpark, they aren't really very good fans in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 03:08 PM) I doubt they would benefit from a new ballpark. If fans aren't willing to go see them because of the ballpark, they aren't really very good fans in the first place. Really? How many franchises have we seen significantly boosted by a new ballpark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:48 PM) So we'd have to suck for years to replenish the farm. No thanks. I like what's been done down there the last few years, especially the drafts. Morel, Viciedo, Beckham, Sale, Lillibridge, Danks, Floyd and Quentin are all cost-controlled guys we've brought up in the last few years. Those are all major league players in some capacity with some looking like stars. We're doing ok. Our pitching staff is so good that we have to try to win next year with some of these kids. I wish the pressure wasn't so high on them here but it is what it is. The Swisher and Griffey trades are the only ones I don't like. Swisher looked like a good player but didn't fit in here. I give KW a pass there. You can't predict a guy won't fit in. He didn't have a Milton Bradley reputation or anything, he just sucked. Griffey for Masset was just retarded though. Peavy trade is a winner for us if he pitches. Only Richard is pitching for them now and he sucks away from Petco. Dex Carter, Poreda and Russell all regressed this year in the minors; horribly regressed. That one looks good if The Peav gets on track. Farm seems better than ever to me even though that isn't saying much. We just have a bunch of guys who have graduated from the minors but have yet to fully dig-in up here. Middle ground sucks but whatever. No, but that is one way to do it. Just look at the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, etc. They'll spend extra on the draft, international signings, and development while having high payrolls, because they complement expensive talent with good young cheap talent, and no they don't have to suck to get high draft picks. They scout extremely well and are willing to pay more for a player who has all-star potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 02:12 PM) Really? How many franchises have we seen significantly boosted by a new ballpark? Or because of a conveniently placed ballpark, looks north. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco72 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 03:12 PM) Really? How many franchises have we seen significantly boosted by a new ballpark? There will be a boost, but wouldn't you think that winning has a greater effect on attendance (especially over the long term) than a new ballpark? If they can't draw by winning, a new ballpark is an incredibly expensive short-term fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 02:12 PM) Really? How many franchises have we seen significantly boosted by a new ballpark? Temporarily, of course. Long term, perhaps not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 02:22 PM) Temporarily, of course. Long term, perhaps not. That's usually because a team doesn't win after the new stadium is built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 12:04 PM) Until Curt Flood, there was no reason to pay a player higher, because no one else could. The end of the reserve clause changed all of that. Anyone else think that might have been the single worst thing to happen to the game of baseball? There are now probably 10 places that know they will never win a World Series. 10? Seems a little high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 12:12 PM) Just to clarify something here, because of the way its being stated... Jerry Reinsdorf is not the owner of the Sox. He's AN owner, and not even the largest one at that. He's a stakeholder, who also happens to have taken on the role of spokesman for said ownership. This brings up a question I've wondered about before. This conglomerate ownership, is it something that is rare or normal in baseball? When owners of other teams are discussed, it usually seems like a single person (or family) is the owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:51 PM) I'm torn on that one. Clearly they'd benefit from a new city, but they'd also benefit from a new ballpark in that city. OTOH, neither of those seem to be happening any time in the near future, since it's not exactly a good time for cities to be off bidding for franchises. I really don't think that's the case. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I'm fairly confident that their attendance is abysmal. Great teams like the Rays should be able to draw a pretty good crowd no matter how bad their stadium is. I don't think those fans will just show up in droves (throughout the season, at least) just because of a new stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 02:12 PM) Really? How many franchises have we seen significantly boosted by a new ballpark? Winning is a WAAAAAAAAAAAY biggest boost than a stadium, and this hasn't helped at all in Tampa. 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.