MLB 2024 Off Season

1194195197199200788

Comments

  • The FixerThe Fixer Posts: 12,837
    polaris_x wrote:
    The Fixer wrote:
    there is no correlation to winning and high payroll. see mets, cubs, mariners, etc

    c'mon man ... how can you say that? ... it's not guaranteeing one will win but it's a major factor ... look who has the worst record in baseball? ... which teams have been to the post season the most in the past decade? ...

    and why would you use those teams?? ... they all have below average payrolls ...

    perenially those teams are among the biggest spenders in the league. maybe not this year, but they usually are.

    if anything a lower payroll may give a team less margin for error (in terms of signing draft picks, FA, etc). It doesn't cripple a team's ability to win though. Honestly I'm sick of teams using this as an excuse. Spend your money wisely, your team will win, you can increase payroll. It's not rocket science. Amazing to me that more teams don't get it.
  • The FixerThe Fixer Posts: 12,837
    polaris_x wrote:
    you look at the top 10 teams in payroll - they all have made the post season recently and in many cases numerous times ... ...

    dude, it's like this in every sport
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    The Fixer wrote:
    dude, it's like this in every sport

    sooo ... are you saying payroll makes a difference or doesn't make a difference? ... the thing is all the other sports have caps ... the playing field is leveled somewhat ...

    in baseball, it's absurd because a team's ability to generate revenue is directly reported to their market size ... the big market teams have a larger population base to sell seats too and thus have access to larger tv contracts ...
  • The FixerThe Fixer Posts: 12,837
    polaris_x wrote:
    The Fixer wrote:
    dude, it's like this in every sport

    sooo ... are you saying payroll makes a difference or doesn't make a difference? ... the thing is all the other sports have caps ... the playing field is leveled somewhat ...

    in baseball, it's absurd because a team's ability to generate revenue is directly reported to their market size ... the big market teams have a larger population base to sell seats too and thus have access to larger tv contracts ...

    doesn't revenue sharing alleviate that problem?

    like I said, a larger payroll may give a team more room for error. however it certainly doesn't assure success. just look at all of the dumb ass contracts ruben amaro has doled out during his tenure.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    The Fixer wrote:
    doesn't revenue sharing alleviate that problem?

    like I said, a larger payroll may give a team more room for error. however it certainly doesn't assure success. just look at all of the dumb ass contracts ruben amaro has doled out during his tenure.

    oh i don't disagree with that ... i totally think that there are some horrible contracts in this league and a lot belong to the big market teams ... but the reality is that those contracts are only bad if the teams don't win ...

    all i'm saying is that payroll isn't everything but it helps ... you can afford to make mistakes because your buffer for mistakes is that much larger ...
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,827
    You guys are saying the exact same thing, I think.

    Bigger payrolls make it easier to win with good decision making and you can afford mistakes at times.
  • The FixerThe Fixer Posts: 12,837
    polaris_x wrote:
    all i'm saying is that payroll isn't everything but it helps ... you can afford to make mistakes because your buffer for mistakes is that much larger ...

    I can't argue with that. though teams like the phils (ryan howard), yanks (arod), red sox (lackey), etc are going to have a tough time sustaining success while tied to those albatross contracts. just look what happened to the cubs after soriano signed his monster deal

    this is from buster olney today. ironic that he has this in his blog today since we are discussing the same thing. crazy that the mets are one of the teams that 'get it'. sandy alderson will turn that team around...he is a great GM. Wish we had one of them in philly.


    In the summer of 2006, as construction began on Citi Field, the New York Mets ' payroll was a little more than $100 million. The beams and the walls went up quickly, and so did the club's payroll, as the Wilpons anticipated the windfall from the opening of their new ballpark and the strengthening of their network, SNY. New York's payroll climbed to $115 million in 2007 and then to $138 million in '08.



    But then came a perfect storm of disasters for the franchise, from late-season collapses to calamitous injuries to, most notably, the arrest and conviction of Bernie Madoff at the same time that Citi Field opened. And despite Fred Wilpon's assertion that the Madoff situation would not affect the team's business, the club's payroll peaked and then plummeted in a record descent of about $50 million in one year -- from $143 million in '11 to $95 million this year.

    The team's attendance, which ranked first in the NL in the last year of Shea Stadium, fell to ninth in the NL in 2011 and currently ranks 13th among 16 teams.

    The Wilpons have hit rock bottom; their liability in the Madoff case was settled with the payment schedule defined. The Mets' current payroll is now about half of what the New York Yankees are spending across town and a little more than half of the Phillies' $172 million payroll.

    So where do the Mets go from here?



    They are moving forward, climbing again, and playing better than expected. After their victory against the Philadelphia Phillies on Tuesday, the Mets are 1½ games out of first in the NL East.

    But as of today, there are no plans for the Mets to dive back into the marketplace and spend aggressively and restore their payroll to pre-Madoff levels. They are switching big-picture strategies, in fact: Rather than making moves designed to lure fans to their ballpark -- like the signing of Pedro Martinez and Jason Bay -- the Mets intend to follow a path created by their fans' investment. As the team gets better, and Citi Field attendance climbs, the Mets' payroll will grow.

    It's a slow-burn strategy, and rival officials believe it has a chance to work under Sandy Alderson, because there is hope on the horizon. Zack Wheeler, the pitching prospect acquired from the San Francisco Giants for Carlos Beltran, is dominating hitters in the minors with a fastball in the range of 94-97 mph, and Matt Harvey is progressing in Triple-A. Jenrry Mejia, whose development was derailed in the past, appears to be back on track.

    "Wheeler reminds me of a right-handed Matt Moore -- he's that good," said one evaluator recently. "He's got really easy gas -- tremendous stuff. You could see a situation where the Mets have Wheeler, Harvey and Mejia in the big leagues by the middle of June [2013], and they could have something building."

    The Mets need help in the middle of the diamond, at catcher, in the middle infield, and they may make intermediate moves as they wait for the maturation of their core of young pitching. But they don't intend to throw around big money, sources say, and while there has been speculation that signing David Wright may require a 10-year investment, the Mets might be much more conservative in these negotiations than expected.



    Wright is 29 years old and is competing for a batting title, but the Mets may well be looking to spend their dollars on power hitters, as they push forward, slowly. We'll see.

    The Mets intend to make Wright an offer at some point, says Sandy Alderson.
  • The FixerThe Fixer Posts: 12,837
    Cliffy6745 wrote:
    You guys are saying the exact same thing, I think.

    Bigger payrolls make it easier to win with good decision making and you can afford mistakes at times.

    yeah, for the most part. I just disagree with polaris' theory that a higher payroll leads to greater chances of success. That's not true. Spending effectively leads to greater chance of success. See, tampa. I also love what toronto has done. They have stockpiled assets and locked up key players. They have a big market. They are a sleeping giant right now. They have tons of money that they are waiting to spend when the time is right.
  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 30,139
    SVRDhand13 wrote:

    Dodgers?

    Who is so great in the AL? Rangers are the only standout team in the entire league to me.

    d**gers suck :mrgreen:

    on thursday, they'll finish a stretch of 23 of 28 at home, with the away games at SD and PHX. friday, they will finally hit the road. they're gonna fall back.
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
    Denver 22
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    The Fixer wrote:
    yeah, for the most part. I just disagree with polaris' theory that a higher payroll leads to greater chances of success. That's not true. Spending effectively leads to greater chance of success. See, tampa. I also love what toronto has done. They have stockpiled assets and locked up key players. They have a big market. They are a sleeping giant right now. They have tons of money that they are waiting to spend when the time is right.

    i don't see how you can say that when the proof is in the pudding ... how are the yankees gonna be in the post season every year with an $90 million payroll? ... how are the phillies gonna boast a rotation with a bunch of cy young guys? ... how are the marlins gonna go from the basement to the top? ...

    yeah - i am liking what AA has done here in Toronto but the reality is that we've had decent teams the past decade and the only reason why we haven't seen the post season is because of the division we're in ... a division that boasts the biggest of spenders boston and new york ... you can't possibly tell me that their success in the past decade or so has nothing to do with payroll ...
  • The FixerThe Fixer Posts: 12,837
    polaris_x wrote:
    The Fixer wrote:
    yeah, for the most part. I just disagree with polaris' theory that a higher payroll leads to greater chances of success. That's not true. Spending effectively leads to greater chance of success. See, tampa. I also love what toronto has done. They have stockpiled assets and locked up key players. They have a big market. They are a sleeping giant right now. They have tons of money that they are waiting to spend when the time is right.

    i don't see how you can say that when the proof is in the pudding ... how are the yankees gonna be in the post season every year with an $90 million payroll? ... how are the phillies gonna boast a rotation with a bunch of cy young guys? ... how are the marlins gonna go from the basement to the top? ...

    yeah - i am liking what AA has done here in Toronto but the reality is that we've had decent teams the past decade and the only reason why we haven't seen the post season is because of the division we're in ... a division that boasts the biggest of spenders boston and new york ... you can't possibly tell me that their success in the past decade or so has nothing to do with payroll ...

    look at the teams that have won in the last ten years. how many of those teams have been in the top 10 of MLB payroll? I'd guess it's around 50%, which pretty much disproves your theory

    the phils were better before they had a huge payroll. I miss the days of them having a mostly homegrown team of up and coming players who were not yet overpaid stiffs
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    The Fixer wrote:
    look at the teams that have won in the last ten years. how many of those teams have been in the top 10 of MLB payroll? I'd guess it's around 50%, which pretty much disproves your theory

    the phils were better before they had a huge payroll. I miss the days of them having a mostly homegrown team of up and coming players who were not yet overpaid stiffs


    this is what we are arguing about ...
    I just disagree with polaris' theory that a higher payroll leads to greater chances of success

    how can you disprove my theory by just picking the winners of the world series? ... it's about getting to the post season ... again - try and prove to me how the red sox and yanks have been consistently in the playoffs this past 10 years and payroll had nothing to do with it ...
  • The FixerThe Fixer Posts: 12,837
    polaris_x wrote:
    The Fixer wrote:
    look at the teams that have won in the last ten years. how many of those teams have been in the top 10 of MLB payroll? I'd guess it's around 50%, which pretty much disproves your theory

    the phils were better before they had a huge payroll. I miss the days of them having a mostly homegrown team of up and coming players who were not yet overpaid stiffs


    this is what we are arguing about ...
    I just disagree with polaris' theory that a higher payroll leads to greater chances of success

    how can you disprove my theory by just picking the winners of the world series? ... it's about getting to the post season ... again - try and prove to me how the red sox and yanks have been consistently in the playoffs this past 10 years and payroll had nothing to do with it ...

    it's about spending efficiently. teams like the twins, cards, rays, and giants have made the playoffs a bunch as well and none of them ever break the bank.

    there are reasons that certain teams (pittsburgh, baltimore, san diego, mets, mariners, etc) are bad year after year. they are poorly run and spend money haphazardly
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    I just disagree with polaris' theory that a higher payroll leads to greater chances of success

    focus on this ^^^^^

    yes - bad management and bad decisions will lead to poor performance and so will injuries and such ... again - how can you tell me that the red sox and yanks success over the past decade has nothing to do with payroll ... focus on the what we are talking about ... spending more doesn't guarantee you will win but it can improve your chances significantly ...
  • jamminpearlsjamminpearls Posts: 7,078
    polaris_x wrote:
    I just disagree with polaris' theory that a higher payroll leads to greater chances of success

    focus on this ^^^^^

    yes - bad management and bad decisions will lead to poor performance and so will injuries and such ... again - how can you tell me that the red sox and yanks success over the past decade has nothing to do with payroll ... focus on the what we are talking about ... spending more doesn't guarantee you will win but it can improve your chances significantly ...

    Just give up,when the fixer disagrees with u UR WRONG even when ur right. :corn:
    Go Birds!!!!
  • FenwayFaithfulFenwayFaithful Posts: 8,626
    Holy crap. I come back to this thread and there's 3 pages of banter I've missed. Yeesh, I was only trying to make the point that the NL and AL east are super-competitive this year.
    "FF, I've heard the droning about the Sawx being the baby dolls. Yeah, I get it, you guys invented baseball and suffered forever. I get it." -JearlPam0925
  • 8181 Posts: 58,276
    Looks like shit, if you would like the excel table drop me a pm with your email


    Team W L Projected wins TOTAL PAYROLL Cost per win
    New York Yankees 26 23 86 $197,962,289 2,302,980
    Philadelphia Phillies 26 25 83 $174,538,938 2,113,363
    Boston Red Sox 25 24 83 $173,186,617 2,095,344
    Los Angeles Angels 26 25 83 $154,485,166 1,870,547
    Detroit Tigers 23 26 76 $132,300,000 1,739,855
    Texas Rangers 31 19 100 $120,510,974 1,199,830
    Miami Marlins 28 22 91 $118,078,000 1,301,565
    San Francisco Giants 27 23 87 $117,620,683 1,344,544
    St. Louis Cardinals 27 23 87 $110,300,862 1,260,869
    Milwaukee Brewers 21 28 69 $97,653,944 1,406,538
    Chicago White Sox 28 22 91 $96,919,500 1,068,337
    Los Angeles Dodgers 32 17 106 $95,143,575 899,312
    Minnesota Twins 17 32 56 $94,085,000 1,673,989
    New York Mets 28 22 91 $93,353,983 1,029,034
    Chicago Cubs 17 32 56 $88,197,033 1,569,228
    Atlanta Braves 27 24 86 $83,309,942 971,378
    Cincinnati Reds 28 21 93 $82,203,616 888,002
    Seattle Mariners 22 30 69 $81,978,100 1,196,089
    Baltimore Orioles 29 21 94 $81,428,999 866,635
    Washington Nationals 29 20 96 $81,336,143 848,334
    Cleveland Indians 27 22 89 $78,430,300 878,620
    Colorado Rockies 19 29 64 $78,069,571 1,217,459
    Toronto Blue Jays 26 24 84 $75,489,200 896,121
    Arizona Diamondbacks 22 28 71 $74,284,833 1,042,155
    Tampa Bay Rays 29 21 94 $64,173,500 682,987
    Pittsburgh Pirates 24 25 79 $63,431,999 799,426
    Kansas City Royals 20 28 68 $60,916,225 902,463
    Houston Astros 22 27 73 $60,651,000 833,866
    Oakland Athletics 22 28 71 $55,372,500 776,831
    San Diego Padres 17 34 54 $55,244,700 1,023,05
    81 is now off the air

    Off_Air.jpg
  • The FixerThe Fixer Posts: 12,837
    chisox pitcher just got tossed without warning for throwing behind a guy. these umps are clueless with this stuff
  • 8181 Posts: 58,276
    The Fixer wrote:
    chisox pitcher just got tossed without warning for throwing behind a guy. these umps are clueless with this stuff


    yup....if anybody should have been tossed, it should have been the tampa pitcher for plunking AJ
    81 is now off the air

    Off_Air.jpg
  • The FixerThe Fixer Posts: 12,837
    polaris_x wrote:
    spending more doesn't guarantee you will win but it can improve your chances significantly ...

    it doesn't hurt. you insinuated earlier that teams that spend more will almost always be in the hunt for playoff spots come august/sept. that's just not true.

    we don't always agree, but I do enjoy discussing sports with you
  • The FixerThe Fixer Posts: 12,837
    81 wrote:
    The Fixer wrote:
    chisox pitcher just got tossed without warning for throwing behind a guy. these umps are clueless with this stuff


    yup....if anybody should have been tossed, it should have been the tampa pitcher for plunking AJ

    I'm guessing that's from his slide the other night. AJ deserves to get hit as far as I'm concerned. like, every time he comes up. he's a huge tool
  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 30,139
    The Fixer wrote:
    Zack Wheeler, the pitching prospect acquired from the San Francisco Giants for Carlos Beltran, is dominating hitters in the minors with a fastball in the range of 94-97 mph

    "Wheeler reminds me of a right-handed Matt Moore -- he's that good," said one evaluator recently. "He's got really easy gas -- tremendous stuff.

    we gave him away for nothing. fuck me. :x
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
    Denver 22
  • 8181 Posts: 58,276
    The Fixer wrote:
    81 wrote:
    The Fixer wrote:
    chisox pitcher just got tossed without warning for throwing behind a guy. these umps are clueless with this stuff


    yup....if anybody should have been tossed, it should have been the tampa pitcher for plunking AJ

    I'm guessing that's from his slide the other night. AJ deserves to get hit as far as I'm concerned. like, every time he comes up. he's a huge tool

    yeah...but the tampa pitcher already plunked beckham :fp:
    81 is now off the air

    Off_Air.jpg
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    The Fixer wrote:
    it doesn't hurt. you insinuated earlier that teams that spend more will almost always be in the hunt for playoff spots come august/sept. that's just not true.

    we don't always agree, but I do enjoy discussing sports with you

    it was related to an article someone posted last week ... i do think that the top 10 teams in payroll will be in the playoff picture this year come aug/sept

    and to your point about the umps ... the umping has been down right atrocious this year ...
  • The FixerThe Fixer Posts: 12,837
    81 wrote:
    The Fixer wrote:
    81 wrote:

    yup....if anybody should have been tossed, it should have been the tampa pitcher for plunking AJ

    I'm guessing that's from his slide the other night. AJ deserves to get hit as far as I'm concerned. like, every time he comes up. he's a huge tool

    yeah...but the tampa pitcher already plunked beckham :fp:

    he was 2nd hitter of the game. don't think that was intentional

    is it wrong that I root against the chisox because I despise hawk harrelson??
  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 30,139
    The Fixer wrote:

    is it wrong that I root against the chisox because I despise hawk harrelson??

    "he gone" :lol:
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
    Denver 22
  • 8181 Posts: 58,276
    The Fixer wrote:
    he was 2nd hitter of the game. don't think that was intentional

    is it wrong that I root against the chisox because I despise hawk harrelson??

    regardless, you can't let tampa hit a guy, plunk a guy and then toss the sox pitcher for throwing behind a ray batter

    i have the radio broadcast on, much better annoucers
    81 is now off the air

    Off_Air.jpg
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    The Fixer wrote:
    is it wrong that I root against the chisox because I despise hawk harrelson??


    http://deadspin.com/5914346/ken-hawk-ha ... d-a-batter
  • 8181 Posts: 58,276
    norm wrote:
    The Fixer wrote:
    is it wrong that I root against the chisox because I despise hawk harrelson??


    http://deadspin.com/5914346/ken-hawk-ha ... d-a-batter

    hopefully they have the game on replay tonight....with my luck, they will replay the cubs game :fp:
    81 is now off the air

    Off_Air.jpg
  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 30,139
    norm wrote:
    The Fixer wrote:
    is it wrong that I root against the chisox because I despise hawk harrelson??


    http://deadspin.com/5914346/ken-hawk-ha ... d-a-batter

    tell us how you really feel, hawk :lol:
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
    Denver 22
Sign In or Register to comment.