Why are all the LA fans ready to kill Depodesta? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Why are all the LA fans ready to kill Depodesta?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby TheYanks04 » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:23 pm

You buy the Padres not the Yanks, so why would the owner of the Padres expect to get the results and resources of a team located in a far bigger market in an area more baseball intense? He did not pay 1B to buy the Padres, he spent significantly less...again you get what you pay for. So what? Nothing stops him from bulding up his team, increasing his fan base, building a bigger revenue stream through TV, Concessions, merchandising etc.

The falisy of an equal opportunity franchiser for baseball never ceases to amaze me. Like if someone buys the Brewers he thinks he can compete n the same level as the RedSox or the Yankees? Like his 200M is going to buy him the same level of clout as a 1B NY team? What did the Senators or St. Loius Brown ever win? Baseball has NEVER, EVER been an equal opportunity franchiser. You get a right to compete under certain agreed upon rules of engagement, not a right to compete with the same resources. No one forces anyone to buy any franchise.
TheYanks04
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero


Posts: 9531
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby kentx12 » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:26 pm

TheYanks04 wrote:You buy the Padres not the Yanks, so why would the owner of the Padres expect to get the results and resources of a team located in a far bigger market in an area more baseball intense? He did not pay 1B to buy the Padres, he spent significantly less...again you get what you pay for. So what? Nothing stops him from bulding up his team, increasing his fan base, building a bigger revenue stream through TV, Concessions, merchandising etc.

The falisy of an equal opportunity franchiser for baseball never ceases to amaze me. Like if someone buys the Brewers he thinks he can compete n the same level as the RedSox or the Yankees? Like his 200M is going to buy him the same level of clout as a 1B NY team? What did the Senators or St. Loius Brown ever win? Baseball has NEVER, EVER been an equal opportunity franchiser. You get a right to compete under certain agreed upon rules of engagement, not a right to compete with the same resources. No one forces anyone to buy any franchise.



It sounds like you might be getting the point. Sometimes it takes some people longer than others but baseball needs a salary cap. That is what everyone is trying to get thru to you.
kentx12
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 17435
(Past Year: 4)
Joined: 8 Dec 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Lost

Postby rockchalk » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:31 pm

TheYanks04 wrote:The Yanks should not spend their own money so that other billionaire owners can have a better chance at competing with them? That is an interesting argument to propose. Welfare for billionaires. George should pocket the 100M into his bank account so Time Warner and Glass and Pohlad can spend less and have a better chance at beating George...I see. Very interesting...let's all share the proceeds of other people's work. Let's make sure everyone gets the same amount of resources no matter how much money and effort they invest. There is a word for that philosophy, I do not think I need to say it. It is sort of on the trash heap of history. Wrong country gentlemen (football nothwithstanding).


If you are going to argue the virtues of capitialism, as a defense to the ascertion that baseball economics are broken..... Then the anti-trust exempetion needs to be removed. If you want to claim that baseball is a competitive industry like any other, they need to play on the same field as MS, ATT and any other of the big boys you want to throw in. Baseball is not pure capitalism at it's finest. It is a broken record hiding behind 80+ year old legislation to keep the one and only monopoly in the US going strong.

No owner makes or made his millions off baseball. Baseball is the playground of the rich and famous. Not all owners are billionaires and not all owners can put up 100, 200 or 300 million dollar payrolls and not go broke. David Glass (and trust me I think he's a terrible owner) cannot spend 100 million on the Royals payroll without losing 40-50 million per year. You can believe it or not, but it is reality. If you think it's fair to ask some (most) owners to do that in order to compete, then you've got a very f***ed up view of the world and the place of sports in it.
rockchalk
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 567
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby wrveres » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:33 pm

TheYanks04 wrote:You buy the Padres not the Yanks, so why would the owner of the Padres expect to get the results and resources of a team located in a far bigger market in an area more baseball intense? He did not pay 1B to buy the Padres, he spent significantly less...again you get what you pay for. So what? Nothing stops him from bulding up his team, increasing his fan base, building a bigger revenue stream through TV, Concessions, merchandising etc.

The falisy of an equal opportunity franchiser for baseball never ceases to amaze me. Like if someone buys the Brewers he thinks he can compete n the same level as the RedSox or the Yankees? Like his 200M is going to buy him the same level of clout as a 1B NY team? What did the Senators or St. Loius Brown ever win? Baseball has NEVER, EVER been an equal opportunity franchiser. You get a right to compete under certain agreed upon rules of engagement, not a right to compete with the same resources. No one forces anyone to buy any franchise.


exactly my point ...

We shouldn't have to play under your rules.
We shouldn't have to play under your market.

As for the Padres (yes, I know it was only an example) they have taken steps to compete.
They got their own stadium. Now the Chargers don't get our concession money anymore.
And they have taken steps to expand their market into Mexico. But they will never be able to compete for the same quality of players that the Yankees compete for, even though they are expected to field a competive team from the same player pool. It has nothing to do with how much you paid for your franchise.
25                "Love the Padres"
Rafael

Dodgers FAIL|Mets FAIL|Canada FAIL
wrveres
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe Musketeer
Posts: 31755
(Past Year: 746)
Joined: 2 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby kentx12 » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:35 pm

rockchalk wrote:
TheYanks04 wrote:The Yanks should not spend their own money so that other billionaire owners can have a better chance at competing with them? That is an interesting argument to propose. Welfare for billionaires. George should pocket the 100M into his bank account so Time Warner and Glass and Pohlad can spend less and have a better chance at beating George...I see. Very interesting...let's all share the proceeds of other people's work. Let's make sure everyone gets the same amount of resources no matter how much money and effort they invest. There is a word for that philosophy, I do not think I need to say it. It is sort of on the trash heap of history. Wrong country gentlemen (football nothwithstanding).


If you are going to argue the virtues of capitialism, as a defense to the ascertion that baseball economics are broken..... Then the anti-trust exempetion needs to be removed. If you want to claim that baseball is a competitive industry like any other, they need to play on the same field as MS, ATT and any other of the big boys you want to throw in. Baseball is not pure capitalism at it's finest. It is a broken record hiding behind 80+ year old legislation to keep the one and only monopoly in the US going strong.

No owner makes or made his millions off baseball. Baseball is the playground of the rich and famous. Not all owners are billionaires and not all owners can put up 100, 200 or 300 million dollar payrolls and not go broke. David Glass (and trust me I think he's a terrible owner) cannot spend 100 million on the Royals payroll without losing 40-50 million per year. You can believe it or not, but it is reality. If you think it's fair to ask some (most) owners to do that in order to compete, then you've got a very f***ed up view of the world and the place of sports in it.



Amen... ;-D
kentx12
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 17435
(Past Year: 4)
Joined: 8 Dec 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Lost

Postby TheYanks04 » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:40 pm

The salary cap is an excuse for the cheapskates to not spend money on the players at what the market rate will bear. Why should you penalize the players and reward billionaire owners because a billionaire like David Glass does not want to spend a few extra million on the Royals? Or AOL-Time Warner for that matter?

No one was complaining when George was spending on losers in the 80's. It is not the spending they dislike...it is the spending and the winning. And punishing the players because a handful of franchise owners are not willing to spend and are more concerned with pocketing every dime they can is perposterous. The players may be overpaid and greedy idiots, but the owners are even worse. Look at Selig and the Brewers. New Park...big revenue sharing...still spends squat.

Oh, and I agree, the anti-trust exemption should be revoked.
Last edited by TheYanks04 on Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TheYanks04
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero


Posts: 9531
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby rockchalk » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:41 pm

This is all true, but the fact is that in the last 30 years things have changed. Free agency came into existence which sent salaries skyward. And TV contracts have become obscene. With baseball being the only major league without a league wide TV contract the big boys get ALL of the dollars. A regional network in the midwest cannot afford to pay a team near as much as in New York with 11 million potential viewers and comparable ad revenues. Is it the Yankees fault, no, but it's not the Royals or Brewers either. Long ago the NFL owners saw the wisdom of sticking together to make everyones pocket deeper and all the franchises more valuable and it worked. The average worth of an NFL franchise far outweighs any of their counterparts and most of that comes from the TV money.

The Brewers owner should know what they are getting and they do. We are not bitching for our millionaire owners, we are bitching because at 33, I'm the last generation that will ever get to see the Royals compete at a championship level unless the climate of baseball changes.
rockchalk
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 567
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby rockchalk » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:47 pm

TheYanks04 wrote:The salary cap is an excuse for the cheapskates to not spend money on the players at what the market rate will bear. Why should you penalize the players and reward billionaire owners because a billionaire like David Glass does not want to spend a few extra million on the Royals? Or AOL-Time Warner for that matter?

No one was complaining when George was spending on losers in the 80's. It is not the spending they dislike...it is the spending and the winning. And punishing the players because a handful of franchise owners are not willing to spend and are more concerned with pocketing every dime they can is perposterous. The players may be overpaid and greedy idiots, but the owners are even worse. Look at Selig and the Brewers. New Park...big revenue sharing...still spends squat.

Oh, and I agree, the anti-trust exemption should be revoked.


This isn't the '80s. Free agency and billion dollar TV contracts have changed everything. Why do you think George was able to buy the Yankees for less than 40 million dollars. Not because they were any less of a pround franchise than today, but because the climate of sports (TV dollars) has dramatically changed. End of story. You can go on saying baseball is not broke, but you are living with your head buried in the sand.
rockchalk
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 567
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby ocmusicjunkie » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:51 pm

I think 90% of the arguments here were made based on individual political views, which were then morphed into baseball terms. Everyone seems to be going off topic a bit.

There is no reason for baseball to have a salary cap. It isn't as if the rich teams go out and crush the small market teams every season. Of course teams like the Brewers just suck every season, but so do teams like the Mets. Of course the Yankees win 90-100 games every year, but so have the A's.

I find it more compelling to watch contrasting styles battle every season than to watch a bunch of teams with even payrolls using the same strategy. It’s fun to see teams like Minnesota use their farm system, while teams like Boston use the open market.

I think everyone is also forgetting how much more even baseball teams are now than 100 years ago. Doesn’t anyone find it funny that all of the Yankees huge title runs came back before free agency? There will never be another monopoly like that. Yet, people still recall those as the golden days of baseball.
Help please:
http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1086524#1086524


Harden- 2.15 ERA, 7.61 K/9
Peavy - 2.89 ERA, 10.10 K/9

[b]Lets go Rich![/b]
ocmusicjunkie
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 828
Joined: 6 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby rockchalk » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:54 pm

Back to the Depodesta question. I'm not from LA, but I see it this way. Last year he traded LoDuca, Mota, Encarnacion and for Penny and Choi. If he now trades Penny for Vazquez and loses Green in the process. He will have basically gotten Vazquez and Choi for all of the above while losing Beltre to FA. He is then talking about trading Vazquez (CHW?) for who knows what. He's like a kid with baseball cards just trying to trade as many as he can. That kid always winds up wondering how he gave up Ted Williams and Hank Aaron for Clete Boyer at the end of the day.

The NL west is wide open. LA needs bats and it doesn't seem like he's got any plan in sight. If I was a Dodger fan I'd be frustrated too.

Just an outsiders take.
Last edited by rockchalk on Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rockchalk
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 567
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: buiviopaufamp and 7 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Aug. 1
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Seattle at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Texas at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Colorado at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
LA Angels at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
San Francisco at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Cincinnati at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
NY Yankees at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Minnesota at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Toronto at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Milwaukee at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
Kansas City at Oakland
(9:35 pm)
Pittsburgh at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
Chi Cubs at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
Atlanta at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact