Lofunzo wrote:I wasn't mentioning who spends the most. That is obvious. I am sick of the team with the #2 payroll complaining about the team with the #1 payroll. Both are obnoxiously high. I was responding to a Sox fan saying that the Yanks buy all of their players when, in reality, they have developed more players on their team than the Sox.
Except you're forgetting that the players teams "develop" are bought too. Large market teams like the Yankees (and the Sox as well) have an advantage in the draft as well as in free agency. Teams, especially small-market clubs, no longer draft for the best players available. They pick based on signibility. That means most of the top prospects end up with the big-money teams, regardless of where they're picking. That's not to mention all the costs involved in scouting, minor-league develoopment, etc. You can praise the Yankees for spending their money wisely on scouting, minor-league instruction and signing picks (though it's easier to get a return on your investment when you can afford your share of Drew Henson-size misses as well), but realize they have the same advantages in terms of "development" that they do with signing big-ticket free agents and trading for high-contract veterans.
You know what?? The small market teams get no sympathy from me there. If someone like the Royals doesn't want to dump $10 M per for a starter, I can deal with that. When they also choose not to spend money on scouting, that's where it ends. Spend on something or move or sell the team. If you are losing money and can't survive, do something about it. Scouting is an area where the smaller market teams can close the gap yet few really do.
To add, I see the fact that the Royals can't afford to keep Beltran worse than the Yankees or Sox being able to afford him. If neither of those 2 teams signed him in the offseason, trust me. Someone else would.
Lofunzo wrote:I wasn't mentioning who spends the most. That is obvious. I am sick of the team with the #2 payroll complaining about the team with the #1 payroll. Both are obnoxiously high. I was responding to a Sox fan saying that the Yanks buy all of their players when, in reality, they have developed more players on their team than the Sox.
Except you're forgetting that the players teams "develop" are bought too. Large market teams like the Yankees (and the Sox as well) have an advantage in the draft as well as in free agency. Teams, especially small-market clubs, no longer draft for the best players available. They pick based on signibility. That means most of the top prospects end up with the big-money teams, regardless of where they're picking. That's not to mention all the costs involved in scouting, minor-league develoopment, etc. You can praise the Yankees for spending their money wisely on scouting, minor-league instruction and signing picks (though it's easier to get a return on your investment when you can afford your share of Drew Henson-size misses as well), but realize they have the same advantages in terms of "development" that they do with signing big-ticket free agents and trading for high-contract veterans.
You know what?? The small market teams get no sympathy from me there. If someone like the Royals doesn't want to dump $10 M per for a starter, I can deal with that. When they also choose not to spend money on scouting, that's where it ends. Spend on something or move or sell the team. If you are losing money and can't survive, do something about it. Scouting is an area where the smaller market teams can close the gap yet few really do.
That makes no sense. So you think it's OK for a team like the Royals to pass on paying a proven veteran starter $10 million for budget reasons, but you expect them to shell out $10 million in a signing bonus for a Boras client out of the draft? Baseball is the only draft where players aren't chosen based on their ability but on their signibility. Praise the Yankees for their "development" all you want; they're just tossing around their money there too, the same bundles of YES cash that most other teams can't compete with.
"I'm telling ya, he jumped us. Gloves off, stick down, no warning. He challenged the Chiefs. Called us names. But Dave was there."
barry4prez wrote:I thought a rivalry consisted of two relatively evenly matched teams? You can't have a rivalry when one team never wins.
Sure you can. The Mets and Braves have had a great rivalry over the last ten years but the edge went to the Braves. Still some great, memorable match ups in between.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
barry4prez wrote:I thought a rivalry consisted of two relatively evenly matched teams? You can't have a rivalry when one team never wins.
That's an ignorant statement when talking about the Red Sox and Yankees. I'm sure if you asked any Yankee they would tell you it's a very heated rivalry. It came down to one pitch last year to decide the season. How much closer do you want it? Do the Sox have to win 26 WS before the teams are even and it can be called a rivalry?
barry4prez wrote:I thought a rivalry consisted of two relatively evenly matched teams? You can't have a rivalry when one team never wins.
Do the Sox have to win 26 WS before the teams are even and it can be called a rivalry?
No. Try winning once for starters...
...this coming from a Giants fan...
I'm not comparing the Giants to the Yankees. Obviously nobody compares to the Yankees in terms of Championships. Giants-Dodgers is a severely underrated rivalry though.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
