It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Baseball: jays the team in the east?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
The Blue Jays had a solid team this year, playing in the division they do it is tough to compete. With Baltimore being the best in team in baseball for so long, along with the Yanks and Red Sox how often are they up against the best team in baseball.

They have had solid starting pitching for th elast few years, which is only getting better, Chacin, Burnett, Lilly all behind Halladay. They have some serious pop in the lineup, it is not always consistent but they have 12-13 guys that should be starting. That is alot of bait to lure some more power into town. Manny has already said he would be willing to come to Toronto, however we could never afford him. Now are sights could be on Nomar. And personally he would be my favorite.

Are defense is one of the tops in the league, with Hudson and Wells winning gold gloves this year. Ricciardi in the office has to be recognized as one of the best GM's in the league at the moment. The manager is well respected, it just has to be seen will these recent moves put some butts in the seats. This is going to be an interesting year for the Jays. If this season goes down the drains, you may see an end to the Blue jays north of the border i think.

Lets hope not anyways




posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
iwas very suprised by the amount of money that Toronto put out on players this year, they have bought themselves a solid ball club up there, will the fans support them? is this a make it or break it year for the Jays?



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
To get fan support here in Toronto, they'll have to win. ALOT. Since the strike the support just hasn't been there. I guess we saw what happened to the Expos (players get good, then fly south) and fear we can't be far behind. Baseball seems a bit like a few elite teams and a bunch of losers. We've been losers for too long. How can we keep up financially with the Yankee's and the Red Sox. We just can't get behind a lost cause. If the Jays do squat this year, moving the team can't be far behind.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Nicely said Karlsberg. You are voicing the concern of nearly every baseball fan, except for the rich ones. Lurxury taxes are not enough to even the playing field. In 2005 it only affected 2 teams, I bet you all can guess who. The Yankees and the Red Sox, the Yankees owed $34M and Boston owed $4M. We saw how much that slowed NY down when they went out and got Damon.

Already being over the luxury tax threashold, Damon will cost Georgie $18M. We have seen talent and good managing even the field a little lately. Although the Yankees haven't been able to win the past few years, the simple math comparing payrolls will illustrate how unfair it is. If the rest of NASCAR spent $1M dollars on their cars (hypothetical figure) and Earnhardt Jr. spent $8M on his "super car", would it be fair? Even if he didn't win everytime, from the outset he has an advantage. The Yankees have an advantage from the out set EVERY year. Until salary caps are implemented it won't change either. You could tax Georgie for every little thing and if it gave him what he thought to be an advantage he would pay it without hesitation.

chissler, I hope things work out up there north of the border. Don't put your eggs all in one basket with Nomar though. (I'm a Cubs fan, LOL)

iaclonz



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   
I was never into a salary cap before this year. The hockey cap is working out great. This is coming from a fan of hockeys version of the Yankees. The Leafs would need a defenceman, they'd just go out and buy him. Well now they can't do that. The only draw is that this is probably hockey's largest market, therefore players could make more cash through advertissing by coming here. It's like football now, anyone can win. Baseball should give it a try, not to save money, but to make the game better for the fans.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I feel compelled to toss in a little baseball history here.

In the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's, when the original 16 franchises were still the only ones around, baseball sure as hell didn't have parity. After the White Sox got dismantled at the end of the 1920 season, when the previous season's fix was disclosed, they developed a horrid stench which stayed with them until the second half of the decade. They had a pitcher named Ted Lyons for 21 seasons who went 260-230. He's in the Hall of Fame, and has a better Career Adjusted ERA than many others who are in the Hall, because achieving that career W-L record with those putrid teams really WAS a Hall-worthy feat.

The Senators, after going to the Series in 1924-1925, went once more in their remaining 35 years in Griffith Stadium, and usually stunk (as they said, "first in war, first in peace, and last in the American League"). The Philadelphia A's were awesome when they had Grove, Foxx, Simmons and Cochrane--beating Ruth and Gehrig 3 years straight--but after 1935, they were just plain HORRIBLE, and the Kansas City A's of the 1950's and 1960's were no better.

Meanwhile, in the National League....

In the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's, the Philadelphia Phillies went 1731-2856 (!), including FIVE separate years where their W-L % was below .300 (!), and a five-year span where their record was 225-534(!). If there is a post-1900, non-expansion string of 30 years which matches that kind of putrefaction, I'm unaware of it.

But the Boston Braves consistently stunk during those same years, and in the non-war years of the 40's and 50's, so did the Pittsburgh Pirates, who, despite having Ralph Kiner, put up some historically bad records. The 1935 Boston Braves, for whom Babe Ruth played his final few weeks at the beginning of the year, had the second worst winning percentage of all time, behind only the 1916 Philadelphia A's.

In other words, there has NEVER been parity in baseball. There have ALWAYS been teams with owners who don't choose to field competitive teams, and who instead put one godawful team after another out there, year after year.

I agree it's gotten a lot easier for this kind of ridiculous financial disparity to happen, in an era where men like Steinbrenner spend a zillion inherited dollars to buy whatever they can. But MLB has never been like the NFL has over the last few decades, where any given team can be an upstart in any given year, and come from out of nowhere to win it all.

And I do think they're improving. Maybe some of y'all had the 2002 Angels winning, but I sure didn't, and I don't know ANYONE who had the 2005 White Sox winning.

B.H.N.

B.H.N.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
BHN, you are right no one probably had the Sox winning this year or the '02 Angels winning that year. But like I said, this year the Sox success was a result of an adequate team that executed flawlessly and a suprising pitching staff. No one had them winning because it was a team of virtual nonames, WITH A MIDDLE OF THE PACK PAYROLL.

Take the NASCAR analogy. Jr. has the best car every race but he doesn't win every race because wrecks happen, engines problems happen, etc. The Yankees have the best team every year but don't win every year because injuries happen, other teams (who are paying much less for player A than the Yanks are paying for player B) get breakout years from player A and the Yanks experience a decline in player B's production.

IF parity is what the fans and/or baseball wants, a salary cap seems essential to me.


iaclonz



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Look, first off it has to be obvious what baseball team I root for. I still have to say I am against salary caps in the MLB. Why? Because I am more of a fan of tradition. Lately it seems that every pro sport has been changing... Where does it stop? Hockey, salary caps, new rules, blah blah blah. Football, new rules, instant replay, salary caps, commercial friggin' time outs!!! Where does it end? Once you pass these new rules and regulations... They don't just disappear. Just like new laws passed in government... Once passed and accepted (even if they suck) they are there.. For damn near ever! Things will work out in the end. Some day my Brewers will win... Something!!! I hope.............



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by iaclonz
BHN, you are right no one probably had the Sox winning this year or the '02 Angels winning that year. But like I said, this year the Sox success was a result of an adequate team that executed flawlessly and a suprising pitching staff. No one had them winning because it was a team of virtual nonames, WITH A MIDDLE OF THE PACK PAYROLL.

Take the NASCAR analogy. Jr. has the best car every race but he doesn't win every race because wrecks happen, engines problems happen, etc. The Yankees have the best team every year but don't win every year because injuries happen, other teams (who are paying much less for player A than the Yanks are paying for player B) get breakout years from player A and the Yanks experience a decline in player B's production.

IF parity is what the fans and/or baseball wants, a salary cap seems essential to me.


iaclonz



Dear IA Clonz,

Did you read my historical discussion? There have ALWAYS BEEN, and currently are, and doubtless always will be, teams whose owners just don't care enough to win. You think we have bad teams now? Find me ANY team as bad as the Phillies were for those THIRTY years, or as bad as the A's, White Sox, Boston Braves and other teams I noted were for prolonged periods of time.

A salary cap will never cure that problem. If an owner doesn't care enough to try and field a winning team, a salary cap won't do a bit of good. And although I, too, would like to see a more level playing field, isn't it wonderful to see a team like last year's White Sox run away with the whole enchilada, minus their Hall of Fame slugger?

I'm not disagreeing with your position, my friend. I'm just telling you that "parity" in baseball has never existed, and never will exist, because salary caps, etc., won't cure clubs whose owners don't care about winning. And not only is there nothing novel about such teams, baseball once was comprised almost 50% of such teams.

B.H.N.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Free agency is bb problem. Weaker teams develop good players, only to lose them to the high bidders. Arod a classic example. Free agency has made the amatuer draft almost meaningless. The reason the amatuer draft was started, was because NY and LA dominated for so long. It was meant to help make the weak teams compete. On the plus side, teams like NY will foolishly throw 52 mil to guys like Damon. I hope Cleveland wins this year. That 02 Angels team was one of the weakest teams, i have seen win it all. The thing is, in a 7 game series, a 80 win team can beat a 100 win team fairly often. The best team (most wins), wins less then 50% of the time. The wildcard has made it possible for lesser teams to win.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The better team won less than 50% of them time when we "only" had 4 teams in the playoffs (starting in 1969), and some examples--like the 1987 Twins--are ridiculous. The 1973 Mets were, I believe , 82-79, and they got ahead 3 games to 2 in the W.S., before blowing it. If 42-year-old Willie Mays hadn't blown that fly ball, they might have won it 4 games to 1, against the vastly superior Reds. The 1954 Giants, with Mays' legendary catch and all, didn't belong on the same field with Cleveland (111-43 that year). And there are dozens more examples.

But you have to get the lesser team into the W.S. first. All those historically bad teams I wrote about--which, except for Kiner's Pirates, all existed at the same time--had NO PRAYER of getting to the Series over a 154-game season in which only the league's pennant winner went to the one-round "playoffs"--i.e., the W.S.

In my almost 53-year lifetime, the following teams have NEVER won a W.S.: Cubs, Indians, Giants (well, ok, when I was 1), Astros (1962-), the expansion Senators/Rangers (1961-), Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals (1969 and good luck), San Diego (same), Seattle Pilots (1969)/Milwaukee Brewers (1970-), Seattle Mariners (1976-), or ANY newer team except Florida. And the Cubs, Senators/Rangers, Expos/Nationals, Mariners and the new teams other than Florida have never BEEN to the World Series.

If you compare these lists to the lists of NFL teams who (1) have never WON the Super Bowl, and (2) have never even been there, you'll find there's a great deal more parity in the NFL.

But at the ownership/management level, baseball is a reactionary sport which, despite having great friends in Congress and the higher courts, has had its @ss kicked REPEATEDLY for collusion and other illegal tactics. (I am just now reading the late, great Leonard Koppett's book on the subject, and all I can say is, what a bunch of fools!) They refuse to accept it's not 1753 anymore. And some of them--whom I believe may be as cash-strapped as they say--either cannot or will not compete.

Obviously nobody can compete with the jerk in NY, nor with their sworn mortal enemy in Boston, where this is like a world war. And yeah, damn right, that does make it all the sweeter when the Yankees go down. I'd like to see the Red Sox win one more time, especially if the giant Texan who is--at a minimum--the greatest righty born between Walter Johnson and Pedro Martinez is with Boston at the time. But after that, I'll face the fact Boston has become NY #2, minus Steinbrenner.

You know.... This is the first multi-person post where I've essentially agreed with everyone to a large degree, or wanted to. I hope Chissler is right--and thus also Toejam--about the Blue Jays prospects, unless Rocket pitches for Boston, and even then, hey, what's the Wild Card spot for?

I agree, primarily, with what Karlsberg and IA Clonz have written.

As for Hootie, I would deifintely not want to see baseball lose free agency, but he's got valid points. Free agency leaves teams no way to compete with the Steinbrenners, the Red Sox consortiums, etc. But as I have explained already on this post, long before free agency existed, back when players made so little they had to drive trucks or pump gas in the off season, there was no semblance of parity because all those owners whose teams I mentioned just didn't care about winning. How else does one explain the monstrous record of the Phillies for THREE decades, or the putrid records of the Braves, White Sox, Red Sox and A's for about half that time?

NFL-like revenue sharing, and/or TV profits-sharing, guarantees those frauds will have no incentive to improve their "teams."

It's a complex problem. In a country where labor has really lost its footing over the past 30 years and ownership has almost nothing but friends in Congress (not just Republicans), it says a lot about the degree of MLB's bad faith that they've repeatedly been NAILED for huge sums in court, without being bailed out by the second-highest federal courts (circuit courts) or the 9 geniuses in DC, much less Congress.

I also think that if MLB owners would quit longing for the "good old days" of 1870-1970, and if they would stay serious about hardcore lines toward steroids and HGH, they would have almost nothing but friends in Congress and the White House. Then they'd see these problems resolved as favorably as possible to them, without the extremely pro-ownership Supreme Court's HAVING to step in.

What they need is a leader to tell them, "Look, folks, we are not going to go back to 1870 or 1950, but we could go back a very long way, as long as we are united and look like we're at least acting in good faith and being dead serious about steroids and HGH."

Don't you all agree there's almost no way they'd lose, then? God knows the Players Union has come off horribly in their reluctance toward steroids testing, in Schilling's just flat repudiating what he'd said to S.I. about players and steroids, in Palmeiro's now-laughable proud denials, in the pitiful performances of Sosa and McGwire, etc. Is there ANYONE here who watched hearings and, regardless of what he/she felt about the owners' disingenuous, doesn't now feel repulsed by what the players did?

For decades now, the illegal conduct of ownership has gotten them brought to their knees, time after time after time, in the courts. And I think the resulting arrogance of the players was obvious in those televised hearings, as was the supreme arrogance of their union leader. If management would JUST get over their 19th Century mentality and go in there with a realistic attitude, I think the owners would find Congress SQUARELY ON THEIR SIDE.

Would they cancel free agency? NO. But they'd do just about everything else the owners want. Don't y'all think


B.H.N.




top topics



 
0

log in

join