Lammycat Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 True, but for all the regular season woes, they will likely somehow do something entirely stupid-insane during the postseason. Because that's how expensive teams work.I don't follow this logic. "Expensive" teams play better in the post-season then less expensive teams? So if LAA meet the Cubs then the LAA should win because they have a higher payroll? Colorado lost the WS last year because they were outplayed. The amazing run they had in the three weeks before the post-season showed that a team with a low payroll can be competitive, too. ed. I went to push "reply" and it was locked. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Also, Twins are even in the loss column with the Bosox, White Sox are one ahead in the loss column. Nothing has been decided as far as the Central/East/WC. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 The AL West is really the only postseason spot in either league that even looks like it's decided. Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 There is still plenty of baseball left for the season, so you can save some of your red sox bitching for september. don't want to use it all up now. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Latest unlikely Manny trade rumor, from one of the Baseball Prospectus guys: One good source told me that he had heard that the Marlins were involved, willing to give up Jeremy Hermida and Boston-area product Jeff Allison, but I couldn't confirm this. I just don't see this deal getting done. Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I just heard a Manny for Favre deal was basically done. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 Latest unlikely Manny trade rumor, from one of the Baseball Prospectus guys:Yeah, I don't see Allison sweetening the deal at all. Manny mid-season trading-deadline mania once again. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 Trade deadline rumors from Jon Heyman (SI); Dunn, Washburn, Bay, et al.:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...ex.html?eref=T1 Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Manny mid-season trading-deadline mania once again.this is the only aspect of manny being manny that consistently drives me right up the wall. but i still love the guy and want him to stay. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 this is the only aspect of manny being manny that consistently drives me right up the wall. but i still love the guy and want him to stay.According to Remy on WEEI this morning, Manny asked him yesterday if he'd been traded yet and told Remy he wants to "find peace" playing somewhere else.... Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I don't follow this logic. "Expensive" teams play better in the post-season then less expensive teams? So if LAA meet the Cubs then the LAA should win because they have a higher payroll? Colorado lost the WS last year because they were outplayed. The amazing run they had in the three weeks before the post-season showed that a team with a low payroll can be competitive, too. ed. I went to push "reply" and it was locked. The Rockies lost because they didn't have as good a team as the Red Sox. I don't think it is a stretch to say this is at least partly a product of them having a lower payroll. Also, I love Hermida, so I'm not sure I'd be down with trading him for Manny. Manny's a great hitter, and we do have a lot of depth in the minors with outfielders, but it's risky. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 The Rockies lost because they didn't have as good a team as the Red Sox. I don't think it is a stretch to say this is at least partly a product of them having a lower payroll.Doesn't this counter your contention that anyone can win in the post-season, though? With a little luck? I agree they were the inferior team. They made it to the WS on a shoe-string budget, though. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Anyone can win in the postseason, but there is rarely any amount of luck that can change an asswhupping like the Sox put on the Rockies. Sometimes it's a cointoss, and sometimes you are clearly outclassed. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 Anyone can win in the postseason, but there is rarely any amount of luck that can change an asswhupping like the Sox put on the Rockies. Sometimes it's a cointoss, and sometimes you are clearly outclassed.Outclassed, outcoached, outplayed. Call it what you will but at that point in the season do you honestly believe they were outspent? Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 They had a better team at least partly because they had more resources to put said team together. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 They had a better team at least partly because they had more resources to put said team together.Yet the Rockies took a short series 2-1 from the Sox earlier in the season, and yet plenty of teams with far lesser payrolls have triumphed over higher-payroll teams in the WS (of recent memory: FLA, ARI, etc.). I just don't see the validity of pegging a team as a "better" team because they have more money to spend. Sure, of course it helps, and I say this as a fan of a team that's 4th highest in payroll this season (Tigers and Mets don't get the same criticism that BOS takes, though), but there are plenty of other factors besides bottom-line payroll that are more important in how a team finishes a season/post-season. Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 According to Remy on WEEI this morning, Manny asked him yesterday if he'd been traded yet and told Remy he wants to "find peace" playing somewhere else....yah, remy sounded certain during last night's game that manny will be gone by the end of the season at the latest. how much more peaceful can manny get? i mean, his whole persona to me says peace=fun. i can't see him catching a fly ball, climbing the left field wall, and high-fiving a fan someplace else, but maybe he's done with that stuff. i don't think so, though. manny seems to want to find actual peace at only certain times of the year. the rest of it he has a pretty good time. maybe the sox should get him a good therapist. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 It's like this: Being 7 feet tall doesn't mean you will play in the NBA. But it certainly increases your chances. Having a bajillion dollar payroll doesn't garauntee you will have a good team, but it definitely doesn't hurt. You have to spend the money well, but if you do, you should be able to put a good team together. Like you said, they had to have an amazing 3 week run just to get there. Lower payroll teams have to fly just to get to where higher payroll teams can walk. The problem of course comes when players underperform (Or simply aren't that good, as is the case with the Tigers) or when you start to get to the end of your big contracts and the players are old and can't possibly perform up to those standards (Mets). And Arizona had the 8th highest payroll in baseball in 2001. They were anything but a small payroll underdog. It's easy to go back now and rewrite history because they seem like such huge underdogs given that everyone in the country was rooting for the Yankees, but they weren't. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 When was the last time the Yankees won a postseason series? 2004? Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Having more money doesn't automatically make a team better, but it makes it a whole lot easier for them to get better. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 The Marlins and the Red Sox have won the same number of WS the past ten years. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Yeah, but in the year that the Marlins won their first one, 1997, their payroll was larger than Boston's (in that year, Florida's payroll was 5th largest in MLB at $52mill, while Boston was 15th at $40mill). Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 Yeah, but in the year that the Marlins won their first one, 1997, their payroll was larger than Boston's (in that year, Florida's payroll was 5th largest in MLB at $52mill, while Boston was 15th at $40mill).And they were at/near? ($49 MM) the bottom of MLB payrolls for the next one (bottom 2/3). I'm not saying money doesn't help, but the efficiency in how that money is used and the manner in which a team is run is of greater importance than bottom line payroll numbers. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Well sure, if any team is going to win, they have to use their money well, no matter how much money they have. It's possible to put together a winning team with a lower payroll, it's just a lot harder. Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Clubhouse issues with Prince Fielder and CC.... Becoming a distraction on and off the field... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts