Milkman delivers Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 01:48 PM) How many consecutive years does a team need to lose to the Yankees before we call it a dynasty? Ugh, this has nothing to do with us. They're a dynasty in the Central division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) Or at least win a single playoff game? Heck we keep hearing that it doesn't matter if the Sox get to the playoffs and get smacked down right away, yet the Twins are a dynasty for doing exactly that? Uh, ok. Yes, they are. Because they do it almost every year, which makes it a dynasty. You can come up with as many condescending remarks as you want, but that's the fact of the matter. The Sox pull a division title out of their asses once or twice a decade. The Twins have done it 6 times in 9 seasons. I think that qualifies them as a dynasty of the AL Central, which is what I said. They're not a dynasty of the league like the Yankees were for a few decades, but they are for the division in which they play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 02:54 PM) Ugh, this has nothing to do with us. They're a dynasty in the Central division. That's just not a dynasty. The Detroit Pistons won the NBA Central Division for 6 of 7 years, even got a title, but no one in their right mind would call them a Dynasty. The Colts have won their division for 7 of the last 8 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) Or at least win a single playoff game? Heck we keep hearing that it doesn't matter if the Sox get to the playoffs and get smacked down right away, yet the Twins are a dynasty for doing exactly that? Uh, ok. Exactly..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 01:58 PM) Yes, they are. Because they do it almost every year, which makes it a dynasty. You can come up with as many condescending remarks as you want, but that's the fact of the matter. The Sox pull a division title out of their asses once or twice a decade. The Twins have done it 6 times in 9 seasons. I think that qualifies them as a dynasty of the AL Central, which is what I said. They're not a dynasty of the league like the Yankees were for a few decades, but they are for the division in which they play. The only reason it is "condescending" is because it is a direct contradiction to the reasons Ozzie Guillen needs to be fired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 01:58 PM) That's just not a dynasty. The Detroit Pistons won the NBA Central Division for 6 of 7 years, even got a title, but no one in their right mind would call them a Dynasty. The Colts have won their division for 7 of the last 8 years. Then they're both dynasties of their divisions, as I specifically said. You can go ahead and disagree, which you will because you love it, but that doesn't make you any less incorrect. When you have a run of dominance over several years in a specific group, you are a dynasty. And don't turn this around to championships, because I started this entire thing off by saying that they are a dynasty of only the Central division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 02:00 PM) The only reason it is "condescending" is because it is a direct contradiction to the reasons Ozzie Guillen needs to be fired. It's condescending because you completely went off of the point in order to minimize their accomplishments, as though every single person on this site isn't aware of their futility in the playoffs. I stated from the very beginning that I was speaking in terms of just the division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenksycat Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) It's condescending because you completely went off of the point in order to minimize their accomplishments, as though every single person on this site isn't aware of their futility in the playoffs. I stated from the very beginning that I was speaking in terms of just the division. I've never heard of any pro sports team being a "dynasty" for winning their division and getting bounced in the playoffs every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cali Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I don't think a divisional dynasty is a thing. I've never heard the Atlanta Braves called a dynasty and they won what 14 in a row? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) I've never heard of any pro sports team being a "dynasty" for winning their division and getting bounced in the playoffs every year. That argument was made already. Just because they're not referred to in the media as a dynasty doesn't make it any less true. The definition of a sports dynasty is a team that has a sustained run of dominance. It's true that the Twins have done nothing in the playoffs, and I'm not going to argue that because I'd be wrong. But they have dominated the Central division for a while which, by definition, would make them a dynasty of their division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (Cali @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) I don't think a divisional dynasty is a thing. I've never heard the Atlanta Braves called a dynasty and they won what 14 in a row? You've never heard the Braves called a dynasty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cali Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 12:28 PM) You've never heard the Braves called a dynasty? The only times I've heard the word dynasty in sports is for winning World Championships Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (Cali @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 02:35 PM) The only times I've heard the word dynasty in sports is for winning World Championships I can see the argument against the Twins as I'm just going by the definition of a string of dominance, but that Braves team has to be considered a dynasty in my opinion. 14 straight years is just unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chisoxt Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (mmmmmbeeer @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 07:44 PM) This coming from the guy who warned us that Peavy's lat was going to detach and that all of Dunn's hitting prowess was contained in his appendix. Great post, dude. The warning signs for Peavy's injury-prone nature were evident well before the trade was made. For God's sake, he was on the DL the time the trade was made. As for now, Jake may still be in one piece, but barely. A more important question to ask is has he been an effective pitcher at a salary of $15 million? I would say no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hibbard Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Milkman, in the "end of Ozzie" thread you just argued that an '11 Sox division title is worthless in and of itself, and yet somehow in this thread Twins division titles are in and of themselves meaningful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedoctor Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 08:49 PM) Milkman, in the "end of Ozzie" thread you just argued that an '11 Sox division title is worthless in and of itself, and yet somehow in this thread Twins division titles are in and of themselves meaningful? if the sox had six meaningless titles in nine years, it would be not only meaningful, but dynastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hibbard Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 The Bears had six division titles in seven years during the 80s, and I don't know if anyone would call them a "dynasty". The 49ers, Cowboys, Steelers...but not the Bears. They might have been the best defensive team ever, but certainly they were not a "dynasty". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenksycat Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (chisoxt @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) The warning signs for Peavy's injury-prone nature were evident well before the trade was made. For God's sake, he was on the DL the time the trade was made. As for now, Jake may still be in one piece, but barely. A more important question to ask is has he been an effective pitcher at a salary of $15 million? I would say no. He was on the DL for twisting an ankle running the bases....absolutely nothing to do with pitching. Had he accepted the trade the 1st time around, he wouldn't have been on the DL at all when we got him. Edited July 12, 2011 by Jenksy Cat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 03:49 PM) Milkman, in the "end of Ozzie" thread you just argued that an '11 Sox division title is worthless in and of itself, and yet somehow in this thread Twins division titles are in and of themselves meaningful? You're way oversimplifying it, and I believe you know it. I'm saying that a division title for the Sox this year, which would almost certainly be a result of all of the teams being so bad that one just limps into the playoffs, would not be a sufficient reason to keep Ozzie around as I think he's proven himself to be ineffective and that he has lost the team already. Winning a division title would almost certainly guarantee him job security not only through 2012, but beyond. And let's not kid ourselves (I know, I know...the 2006 Cardinals), but this team will not do anything in the playoffs. I honestly and truly believe that this team is better off without Ozzie, and barely not losing the division at the cost of having to deal with him for another few years is not worth it. And with the Twins, I merely said that they have had a dynastic presence in this division. A playoff appearance (especially in this current division) isn't exactly meaningful, but a whole bunch in a nice cluster is definitely meaningful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 QUOTE (thedoctor @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 03:55 PM) if the sox had six meaningless titles in nine years, it would be not only meaningful, but dynastic. People apparently just have a problem with me using the term "dynasty". Fine, I didn't realize people would be so annoyed by semantics. The point is that the Twins have had a run of dominance in the AL Central. I apologize for using such an inflammatory word, but the run of dominance can't really be argued. Wait, I'm sure it can and shortly will be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hibbard Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 04:59 PM) You're way oversimplifying it, and I believe you know it. I'm saying that a division title for the Sox this year, which would almost certainly be a result of all of the teams being so bad that one just limps into the playoffs, would not be a sufficient reason to keep Ozzie around as I think he's proven himself to be ineffective and that he has lost the team already. Winning a division title would almost certainly guarantee him job security not only through 2012, but beyond. And let's not kid ourselves (I know, I know...the 2006 Cardinals), but this team will not do anything in the playoffs. I honestly and truly believe that this team is better off without Ozzie, and barely not losing the division at the cost of having to deal with him for another few years is not worth it. And with the Twins, I merely said that they have had a dynastic presence in this division. A playoff appearance (especially in this current division) isn't exactly meaningful, but a whole bunch in a nice cluster is definitely meaningful. You realize if the White Sox win the division this year, they will have exactly the same number of division titles as the Twins going back to 2005? The 2006, 2009 and 2010 Twin teams were all swept in the first round. The 2008 Sox, who probably "limped in the playoffs" by your accounts, won 1 more game than those three combined Twin teams did, and did it against the eventual AL champion. The Twin "dynasty" has 2 playoff game wins in their past 5 appearances. How meaningful can those appearances possibly be? Why are you assigning more weight to three zero-win playoff appearances in the past 7 years vs. 2 Sox teams that did better in the postseason? Edited July 13, 2011 by Greg Hibbard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Greg, I'm tired of arguing with you. It never goes anywhere on either side. We're just two completely different types of fans. Let's just agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 04:20 PM) He was on the DL for twisting an ankle running the bases....absolutely nothing to do with pitching. Had he accepted the trade the 1st time around, he wouldn't have been on the DL at all when we got him. It is his fault. It's amazing how different the past two years might have been had Peavy just accepted the trade in May. No ankle injury = no compensation for it in 09. Meaning no mechanical screw ups in 2010. Meaning less stress on his arm, meaning possibly no detached lat. Who knows how much better the Sox might have been with a completely healthy and good Jake Peavy in 09 and 10? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hibbard Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Milkman - just one question. Should Gardenhire be fired if the Twins win the division and get swept? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyuen Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 11:29 AM) It is his fault. It's amazing how different the past two years might have been had Peavy just accepted the trade in May. No ankle injury = no compensation for it in 09. Meaning no mechanical screw ups in 2010. Meaning less stress on his arm, meaning possibly no detached lat. Who knows how much better the Sox might have been with a completely healthy and good Jake Peavy in 09 and 10? I believe he also had an elbow injury the year before we acquired him so more injuries were foreseeable. 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.