jenbobblehead Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 can we get a salary of all the baseball teams ever in the history of baseball and then overlay all the wins and so we can see once and for all if money actually does buy world series pennents? and then can someone take that list, crumple it up into a ball (or a few balls because i suspect it might be a big list, and then just shove it up their butts? kthxbai Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IATTBYB Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 I know that this is the World Series thread, but I'm going to go ahead and treat it as a general baseball thread. So...hooray! This is fun. A-Rod won a meaningless award that will piss off some A-Rod haters.I didn't read that entire article/press release, but isn't A-Rod a paid endorser of Pepsi? What a suprise that he wins an award "presented" by the product he endorses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Serak_the_Preparer Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 can we get a salary of all the baseball teams ever in the history of baseball and then overlay all the wins and so we can see once and for all if money actually does buy world series pennents? and then can someone take that list, crumple it up into a ball (or a few balls because i suspect it might be a big list, and then just shove it up their butts? kthxbai Sorry, but it does matter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Btw, at some point last night as I was trying to fall asleep and coughing up a lung, I came up with the stunning discovery that the time in between the 1967 WS and the 1986 WS was 19 years, and the time between the '86 and '04 Series was 18 years, and that you put those together and it gives you 1918. Or something. And then I coughed some more. Cool!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Sorry, but it does matter. Prove it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Big market fans always like to say salary is insignificant, but money talks. Diamondbacks v. Yankees '01?!? Are you all seriously saying the better you're paid the better you play?!? And the more revenue your team brings in guarantees a win?!? Come on, now... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Serak_the_Preparer Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 MLB Team Payrolls Rk Team Payroll (US$) 1 Yankees $189,888,122 2 Red Sox $145,151,214 3 Mets $123,256,663 4 Dodgers $120,980,447 5 Cubs $111,620,193 6 Mariners $108,340,833 7 White Sox $105,541,833 8 Phillies $102,053,213 9 Cardinals $100,001,823 10 Angels $99,281,333 11 Braves $95,880,833 12 Orioles $89,501,608 13 Tigers $84,555,369 14 Astros $82,159,000 15 Blue Jays $80,126,400 16 Padres $79,140,600 17 Brewers $72,286,500 18 Giants $69,410,554 19 Indians $67,777,867 20 Twins $61,589,500 21 Rockies $60,574,000 22 Reds $59,762,480 23 Royals $58,866,500 24 Diamondbacks $57,667,546 25 Pirates $53,740,116 26 Athletics $51,477,146 27 Rangers $45,653,675 28 Nationals $40,412,500 29 Marlins $39,778,219 30 Devil Rays $22,314,900 Teams 25-30 in payroll were the 6 worst teams in baseball and all below .500 - the top 6 teams in payroll were all over .500 and the top 2 paid teams were 1 and 2 in baseball. I know it is not everything, but to discount it is not being honest. It is like having a Dvision 1A team in NCAA football playing a D-1 school. Sure, ND can beat Minnesota and Appilacian St. can beat Michigan, but the majority of the time the school with more money wins. Sorry for the facts. I know you can always find exceptions, but the rule of thumb is money=wins in sports. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Diamondbacks v. Yankees '01?!?Are you all seriously saying the better you're paid the better you play?!? And the more revenue your team brings in guarantees a win?!? Come on, now... Is this willfull ignorance? Obviously the claim is that more money allows you to sign better players, not that players start playing better if you give them more money. Come on now. No one is saying that more money guarantees anything, just that it gives a huge advantage. And that advantage can be seen in larger sample sizes than one series. Of course a lesser team can win a short series, but over time the team with the greater resources will be more likely to win more. This is, of course, contingent on the people spending the money having some idea what they're doing, but the more money a team has, the greater room there is for error. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 I am from the midwest - and from a smaller-market farm-based team.Are you Jeff Suppan? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted October 25, 2007 Author Share Posted October 25, 2007 I am from the midwest - and from a smaller-market farm-based team. Are you Ray Kinsella? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Is this willfull innocence Maybe... I just want an explanation for the '01 Series, that's all. And I don't want to hear "luck"! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Here's the explanation: Arizona played better than the Yankees did over the course of a short series. They had two great pitchers who dominated for a couple of games each. The end. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 those of you who support shitty teams should just have a few bake sales so that you'll have the funds to buy players and you can finally be more competitive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 those of you who support shitty teams should just have a few bake sales so that you'll have the funds to buy players and you can finally be more competitive. Do you really think that having more money is not an advantage? Seriously? I'm not even saying there's anything wrong with that. If my team had the money to spend, then I sure as hell would want them to spend it. I don't think it diminishes their pennant any, or their likely upcoming World Series win, to acknowledge that having some extra money gives them an edge over teams with less to spend. They still have to know how to use that money. But as it stands, for big name free agents, there are only a handful of teams who are in the running to sign them, and if the Red Sox make a mistake and blow a lot of money on someone who doesn't pan out, they have a much greater ability to recover than, say, the Pirates would be if they'd spent the same amount. That's all I'm saying. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Here's the explanation: Arizona played better than the Yankees did over the course of a short series. They had two great pitchers who dominated for a couple of games each. The end. K, you say over "a short series"?!? But didn't they have to play pretty damn well throughout the year to GET TO the World series in the first place?!? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Of course money matters. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 those of you who support shitty teams should just have a few bake sales so that you'll have the funds to buy players and you can finally be more competitive. I about the Red Sox all the way (and therefore, anti-Yankee, of course ). I'm just saying the other guys can play hard and win, too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Diamondbacks v. Yankees '01?!?Are you all seriously saying the better you're paid the better you play?!? And the more revenue your team brings in guarantees a win?!? Come on, now...Diamondbacks were something like number 8 in salary that year. That's not low. You're either intentionally or unintentionally obscuring the issue. It's not a matter of a high salary MAKING a player play better. The better players that are no longer arbitration eligible (read: established veterans) COMMAND higher salaries. This means they migrate to (or stay with) the higher paid teams. Higher salary does not guarantee victory or anything like that. It is a contributing factor. Obviously all the money in the world won't help if ownership and the front office are inept (Orioles). The best case scenario for any team is a high payroll and good management--which the Red Sox have. Here's how you deal with that fact as a fan of a high-salary team: don't give a shit. To you, they're not a high payroll team--they're just YOUR team. You should want them spending a lot of money--that means they're investing in the team and not just hogging the money for the owner. But don't begrudge the neutral observer (who wouldn't normally have an interest in rooting for either team) their choice to root for the underdog. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 K, you say over "a short series"?!? But didn't they have to play pretty damn well throughout the year to GET TO the World series in the first place?!? Yes. They were a very good team. I'm not even sure what your point is here. Diamondbacks were something like number 8 in salary that year. That's not low. You're either intentionally or unintentionally obscuring the issue. It's not a matter of a high salary MAKING a player play better. The better players that are no longer arbitration eligible (read: established veterans) COMMAND higher salaries. This means they migrate to (or stay with) the higher paid teams. Higher salary does not guarantee victory or anything like that. It is a contributing factor. Obviously all the money in the world won't help if ownership and the front office are inept (Orioles). The best case scenario for any team is a high payroll and good management--which the Red Sox have. Here's how you deal with that fact as a fan of a high-salary team: don't give a shit. To you, they're not a high payroll team--they're just YOUR team. You should want them spending a lot of money--that means they're investing in the team and not just hogging the money for the owner. But don't begrudge the neutral observer (who wouldn't normally have an interest in rooting for either team) their choice to root for the underdog.^ He gets it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 those of you who support shitty teams should just have a few bake sales so that you'll have the funds to buy players and you can finally be more competitive.Hmm...this subject seems to strike a nerve. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Do you really think that having more money is not an advantage? Seriously? of course it is an advantage, money always brings advantage, but it isn't everything! big budget movies still suck, and low budget movies can win oscars, high-ticket universities still graduate idiots, and state colleges graduate geniuses, and baseball teams that don't pay a luxury tax can still win the Division Series and the world series. I guess i'm a little sick of all the sour grapes in these threads every time a high budget team makes it to the playoffs as though good playing, teamwork and managing has nothing to do with it--that it is just the money playing. I think that's bullshit. i don't even believe that about the Yankees and you all know how i feel about them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Yes. They were a very good team. I'm not even sure what your point is here. You said short series, I was pointing out they played well all year. And now as Jorge has pointed out, they were 8th in salary that year. I was NOT aware of that. So I give...I have to go to work anyway Let's hope for at least a more eventful game either way tonight! Go Sox!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 of course it is an advantage, money always brings advantage, but it isn't everything! big budget movies still suck, and low budget movies can win oscars, high-ticket universities still graduate idiots, and state colleges graduate geniuses, and baseball teams that don't pay a luxury tax can still win the Division Series and the world series. I guess i'm a little sick of all the sour grapes in these threads every time a high budget team makes it to the playoffs as though good playing, teamwork and managing has nothing to do with it--that it is just the money playing. I think that's bullshit. i don't even believe that about the Yankees and you all know how i feel about them. I don't think anyone here said that money was everything. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 the majority of the time the school with more money wins. Sorry for the facts. I know you can always find exceptions, but the rule of thumb is money=wins in sports. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
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.