Two teams it's hurting very badly are Toronto and Tampa Bay. The system is completely unfair for those teams. Toronto has spent big money but they've had to spend it on risky players because those are the ones they could afford. They still can't compete for the big names.
Also, seven new playoff teams isn't a big deal when it's just a rotation of big market teams with a couple others. The problem lies in the AL. In the 2000's the AL has had 4 small-medium market teams in the playoffs: Cleveland, Minnesota, Oakland and Seattle.That's not competitive balance. They are teams that managed to get enough performance from their farm to compete for a few years only to see their stars go to other teams. Minnesota will see the same thing in the next couple years and I'm sure Cleveland will in 3-4 years. A guy like Torii Hunter would never be going to another team if he were a member of the Vikings or Wild. Just look at how painstaking and how long it took the Wolves and the fans to realize that KG had to go. But, at least they got something in return other than a crapshoot draft pick. It's sickening that in baseball, fans are resigned that sooner or later their favorite player will no longer be a part of the team and that there will be new guys coming up from the farm every year to replace the guys we watched last year. Yeah....revenue sharing works.
jfg wrote:Two teams it's hurting very badly are Toronto and Tampa Bay. The system is completely unfair for those teams. Toronto has spent big money but they've had to spend it on risky players because those are the ones they could afford. They still can't compete for the big names.
Also, seven new playoff teams isn't a big deal when it's just a rotation of big market teams with a couple others. The problem lies in the AL. In the 2000's the AL has had 4 small-medium market teams in the playoffs: Cleveland, Minnesota, Oakland and Seattle.That's not competitive balance. They are teams that managed to get enough performance from their farm to compete for a few years only to see their stars go to other teams. Minnesota will see the same thing in the next couple years and I'm sure Cleveland will in 3-4 years. A guy like Torii Hunter would never be going to another team if he were a member of the Vikings or Wild. Just look at how painstaking and how long it took the Wolves and the fans to realize that KG had to go. But, at least they got something in return other than a crapshoot draft pick. It's sickening that in baseball, fans are resigned that sooner or later their favorite player will no longer be a part of the team and that there will be new guys coming up from the farm every year to replace the guys we watched last year. Yeah....revenue sharing works.
You cannot compare the NFL to other sports from a financial perspective. NFL revenues are national. Baseball revenues are regional.
Grounded Polo wrote:It was justifiable to consider firing Torre when the Yankees were so terrible in the Spring. Now, I can't imagine why they would fire Torre after he brought them back from the dead and into the playoffs. He proved his worth off that alone.
Why can't it be the other way around? Why can't it be Torre that brought got them to the horrible point there were at a few months into the season, but it was the offense that got them out of it? I'm not sure how you can prove either way, except that managers have been mathematically proven -- especially in the American League -- to have little impact over the course of a season; so it's naive (or at least unfounded) to say Torre is responsible for the Yankees turning it around.
Grounded Polo wrote:It was justifiable to consider firing Torre when the Yankees were so terrible in the Spring. Now, I can't imagine why they would fire Torre after he brought them back from the dead and into the playoffs. He proved his worth off that alone.
Why can't it be the other way around? Why can't it be Torre that brought got them to the horrible point there were at a few months into the season, but it was the offense that got them out of it? I'm not sure how you can prove either way, except that managers have been mathematically proven -- especially in the American League -- to have little impact over the course of a season; so it's naive (or at least unfounded) to say Torre is responsible for the Yankees turning it around.
If he gets blame for their initial collapse, he must also get credit for the turnaround. It can't be 1 but not the other.
Grounded Polo wrote:It was justifiable to consider firing Torre when the Yankees were so terrible in the Spring. Now, I can't imagine why they would fire Torre after he brought them back from the dead and into the playoffs. He proved his worth off that alone.
Why can't it be the other way around? Why can't it be Torre that brought got them to the horrible point there were at a few months into the season, but it was the offense that got them out of it? I'm not sure how you can prove either way, except that managers have been mathematically proven -- especially in the American League -- to have little impact over the course of a season; so it's naive (or at least unfounded) to say Torre is responsible for the Yankees turning it around.
The way I see it...
...Torre has represented consistency in New York over 12 years. Whether or not he (or anyone) has a big impact on the actual game is up for debate. But I think there is something to be said for comfort level. Torre has dealt with the New York media and the Steinbrenner pressure for over a decade. A lot of players on that team love him. And there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that Girardi or Mattingly or even La Russa for that matter, would or could conceivably have any more success than Joe Torre has had. There's no guarantee that any of those guys could manage the egos of a superstar-filled team, remain calm in the face of adversity, and handle himself and his organization with absolute CLASS for as long as Torre has.
I just don't think you mess with something like that. If it was my call...if Torre wants the job, he's got it.
Grounded Polo wrote:It was justifiable to consider firing Torre when the Yankees were so terrible in the Spring. Now, I can't imagine why they would fire Torre after he brought them back from the dead and into the playoffs. He proved his worth off that alone.
Why can't it be the other way around? Why can't it be Torre that brought got them to the horrible point there were at a few months into the season, but it was the offense that got them out of it? I'm not sure how you can prove either way, except that managers have been mathematically proven -- especially in the American League -- to have little impact over the course of a season; so it's naive (or at least unfounded) to say Torre is responsible for the Yankees turning it around.
If he gets blame for their initial collapse, he must also get credit for the turnaround. It can't be 1 but not the other.
Then it goes the other way, also. In that if he doesn't get credit for the collapse, then he doesn't get credit for the turnaround.
Just checking to see if I'm the only one who picked up on this. When Torre decided not to play for a run in Game 2 by bunting over and the Yanks ended up losing that game, a lot of people asked why. A lot of people said "That's just American League baseball. You play for the 3 run home run and teams don't want to waste the out." (I heard this both on sports radio, and read it in the Yankees Mailbag article after that game) Is it just me, or when Joe first took over the Yankees, didn't he play small ball? I remember them bunting a guy over on more than one occasion. Wasn't he praised for bringing National League style baseball to the American League and making it work? And now he's being defended by people saying that's not the way the game is played in the AL? If it worked 11 years ago it should work now. It just seems to me that there are a lot of people jumping to defend Torre's decision making process there when the alternative was exactly what brought him his success with the Yanks in the first place.
luckygehrig wrote:Just checking to see if I'm the only one who picked up on this. When Torre decided not to play for a run in Game 2 by bunting over and the Yanks ended up losing that game, a lot of people asked why. A lot of people said "That's just American League baseball. You play for the 3 run home run and teams don't want to waste the out." (I heard this both on sports radio, and read it in the Yankees Mailbag article after that game) Is it just me, or when Joe first took over the Yankees, didn't he play small ball? I remember them bunting a guy over on more than one occasion. Wasn't he praised for bringing National League style baseball to the American League and making it work? And now he's being defended by people saying that's not the way the game is played in the AL? If it worked 11 years ago it should work now. It just seems to me that there are a lot of people jumping to defend Torre's decision making process there when the alternative was exactly what brought him his success with the Yanks in the first place.
You are correct. When he came over, that is the type of team that he had. Guys like Brosius, O'Neill, and Knoblauch were good situational hitters. They could get the 2-out hit. This team can't seem to do that on a consistent basis.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by jfg » Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:34 pm 
