Yankees Now in the Hunt for A-Rod

No no no no no no no no no! (and I'm not a purist).

The reason why all these teams are "out of contention" is NOT the exclusive MLB playoff requirements... its the DEPLORABLE way these franchises run their teams, and the EVEN MORE DEPLORABLE way the MLB revenue sharing is set up.

There aren't that many teams, or cities, out there that are saying..."ooh... if there was just one more playoff spot, then we'd gladly buy tickets... because we're so so close."

Explain to people in Milwaukee and Pittsburgh why, despite the fact that they have new stadiums, payroll continues to be reduced and they are well out of contention come day one, extra playoff spots or not.

Also, explain to these cities why teams like Minnesota and Oakland are able to compete year after year, despite the fact that they play in OLD stadiums.

I understand the "spirit" of your point, in that there IS an idea that the MLB playoffs are the hardest to get in to, but on the contrary, there is no "Houston Rockets" of the MLB.

IOW, there are really no teams out there that consistently win, yet don't make the playoffs. In the last two years, the only team I can think of that's close to filling this role is the Astros... but they've made the playoffs plenty before.

There really aren't any other teams that consistently get close each year... they either eventually make it, or they fall well out of contention the following year. In fact, pennant races are CREATED because of the lack of playoff spots, and this DRAMA is vital to baseball succeeding, and may create more revenue in the final weeks of the season, than if that team had already locked an extra playoff spot. (see rampant sellouts in Kansas City, Houston, and Chicago when a playoff spot was in doubt.)

Additionally, while baseball has its fair share of problems, NOBODY can take away the fact that the MLB Playoffs are the BEST IN ALL SPORTS (or at least in sports that have 'playoff series').

Part of the prestige of the game is that IT IS hard to make the playoffs. That a 162 marathon season is actually worth something, and that making the playoffs itself is HUGE accomplishment (unlike hockey, or basketball...unless you're the Rockets).

Also, winning once you get there eventually becomes important (see Astros), but in this day and age... if you can build a team that consistently competes, and is in line for a playoff spot each and every year, you've done something that is VERY HARD to do.

Seeing as how hard consistency in baseball remains, I see no reason why expaning the playoff pool for these "mythical" teams that are sooo close every year will create a sense of "optimism" for the teams that have no shot... regardless.

Fix either the way owners run some of these teams (lack of a salary floor is a bigger problem than lack of a salary cap), or the way baseball shares its revenue (include the TV/Radio deals!)... and then some of these other cities will become optimistic.

 

The NBA must be real proud that the current #6 seed is under .500. The NBA playoffs are so diluted that the only teams that miss the playoffs are the pathetic ones. If you are mediocre, you have a good shot. If you are a championship contender, then the season is too long because "the REAL season doesn't start until the playoffs." In MLB, the teams that make the playoffs deserve it. And you'll never have a team "back into" the playoffs like in the NBA or NFL.

 

Not since Babe Ruth was traded from the Boston Red Sox - bitter rivals of the Yankees -- to New York in 1920 has a deal carried such a huge impact for the sport, according to New York media.


really??

 

BASEBALL BLOCKBUSTERS

A chronological list of some of the biggest trades in baseball history:

April 12, 1916 The Boston Red Sox trade Tris Speaker to the Cleveland Indians for Sad Sam Jones, Fred Thomas and $55,000.

Jan. 3, 1920 The Boston Red Sox trade Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees for $125,000 and a $300,000 loan to Boston owner Harry Frazee.

Dec. 20, 1926 The New York Giants trade Frankie Frisch and Jimmy Ring to the St.Louis Cardinals for Rogers Hornsby.

Dec. 12, 1933 The Philadelphia Athletics trade Lefty Grove, Rube Wallberg and Max Bishop to the Boston Red Sox for Bob Kline, Rabbit Warstler and $125,000.

Dec. 10, 1935 The Philadelphia Athletics trade Jimmie Foxx and Johnny Marcum to the Boston Red Sox for Gordon Rhodes, minor-leaguer George Savino and $150,000.

April 17, 1960 The Detroit Tigers trade Harvey Kuenn to the Cleveland Indians for Rocky Colavito.

Dec. 9, 1965 The Cincinnati Reds trade Frank Robinson to the Baltimore Orioles for Milt Pappas, Jack Baldschun and Dick Simpson.

April 2, 1976 The Oakland Athletics trade Reggie Jackson, Ken Holtzman and a minor leaguer to the Baltimore Orioles for Don Baylor, Mike Torrez and Paul Mitchell.

June 15, 1977 The New York Mets trade Tom Seaver to the Cincinnati Reds for Pat Zachry, Steve Henderson, Doug Flynn and Dan Norman.

Dec. 5, 1990 The Toronto Blue Jays trade Fred McGriff and Tony Fernandez to the San Diego Padres for Joe Carter and Roberto Alomar.

Aug. 31, 1992 The Oakland Athletics trade Jose Canseco to the Texas Rangers for Ruben Sierra, Bobby Witt and Jeff Russell, and an undisclosed amount of money.

May 15, 1998 The Florida Marlins trade Gary Sheffield, Bobby Bonilla, Charles Johnson, Jim Eisenreich and Manuel Barrios to the Los Angeles Dodgers for Mike Piazza and Todd Zeile.

Feb. 18, 1999 The Toronto Blue Jays trade Roger Clemens to the New York Yankees for David Wells, Graeme Lloyd and Homer Bush.

Feb. 10, 2000 The Seattle Mariners trade Ken Griffey Jr. to the Cincinnati Reds for Brett Tomko, Mike Cameron, Antonio Perez and Jake Meyer.

 

Um no, it is all called hype - the "mediots" eat that **** up about the Curse of the Bambino, etc.

I purposely avoided ESPN the last 2 or 3 days because I knew I would get mad and sure enough I turned it on there this morning and there is old Gasbags (yet ANOTHER SoSH nickname, this one for Peter Gammons) running off his mouth about how if the MFYs win the WS, then people will be questioning the Sox for not getting A-Hole and stupid stuff like that. I screamed at my TV, a profanity at Gasbags that I would not want to share here.

 

I agree that something should be done to flatten the disparity between revenues among the teams. That would go a long way toward fixing a lot of baseball's problems.

However, I disagree that adding playoff spots would not increase interest because it would simply be one more area where teams would be in contention, and it would likely end up allowing more teams to make the playoffs more often, leading to a decrease in the feeling that a team is out of it on day one because the standard for getting to the post-season would be lower than it is now.

Now, a team can win 90 some-odd games and find themselves on the outside looking in, and it only gets worse if you're in a stacked division.

Also, explain to these cities why teams like Minnesota and Oakland are able to compete year after year, despite the fact that they play in OLD stadiums.

Minnesota has been the poster-boy for out-of-contention on day one teams. They've just managed to hit a decent spot with their low-paid players along with a willingness to take a loss to keep some higher paid players. A small window that took over a decade to put together. The Twins situation is not sustainable for long.

Additionally, while baseball has its fair share of problems, NOBODY can take away the fact that the MLB Playoffs are the BEST IN ALL SPORTS (or at least in sports that have 'playoff series').

And yet, the ratings, except for the times when an unlikely team makes it further than expected, have eroded and baseball, once the national pasttime, is getting less and less popular while those horrible NFL playoffs that let in too many teams are busting through the roof.

I guess the difference is whether MLB wants to continue to hang on to its past and become more and more irrelevant or whether it's willing to change the game to add interest.

Going to three divisions and adding a Wild Card has been a success (and Kansas City would not have been in contention and selling out games toward the end of the season under the pre-94 divisional; format. The Red Sox would not have made the playoffs without the Wild Card, and the Cubs would not have been in the playoffs under the pre-94 divisions. Florida does not make the playoffs without the Wild Card. Everything that made the playoffs exciting last season doesn't happen if baseball is unwilling to change. We'd have had a Giants-Braves NLCS and a Yankees-A's ALCS. No Cubs, No Red Sox. No Twins. No Marlin EDIT: I guess the Marlin would've made it since the Braves were in the NL West). There's no reason to believe that expanding the format would not mean even more success (especially since it would give teams a little extra added incentive to spend rather than just sitting back and collecting extra money like the Brewers are and the Twins did for years and years and years).

Will it solve all the problems? Of course not. But it's something that can help.

 

I would say that is not too far off. This is probably the first time since then that the (arguably) best player in the game has been traded.

 

Going to three divisions and adding a Wild Card has been a success

Just to build on this, if not for the switch to three divisions and a wild card, the Astros would not have made the playoffs since the 1986 season. Would interest in the Astros be as high if they were working on a nearly 20-year playoff drought? The Astros never made it out of the first round in any of the years they did make the playoffs under the newer system, but interest in the team is most certainly higher with those playoff appearances rather than without.

And if the Astros were in a 17-year playoff drought, a whole lot of Astros fans would consider the team out of contention on opening day or soon thereafter in many of those years, even in those years when, under the newer system, they made the playoffs.

Having a team make the post-season does a lot to the perception of whether a team is or isn't in contention.

 

I barely pay attention any more. I can't get into a sport where over half the teams are out of contention from opening day. Money doesn't mean you'll win, but not having it means you wo't.

How many teams really are out of contention from Day #1? Obviously, in divisions like the AL East, we have serious problems because you can't compete with Boston or NY. However, in the NL, in the last 6 years (1998-2003), we've had the following teams make the playoffs:

NL West: Arizona, San Fran, San Diego
NL Central: Houston, St. Louis, Chicago
NL East: Atlanta, NY Mets, Florida

In addition, the Dodgers, Reds, Expos, and Phillies have been in contention in August and September, I believe.

Out of 16 teams, that's 9 making the postseason, with another 4 in contention. During that period, at least 5 different teams made the World Series. Of the 3 teams that never contended (Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Colorado), I would argue all of those suffered through horrible management.

That's not to say the revenue structure is good. Certainly the small market teams have a substantially tougher time, but I don't think you can say that they are totally out of contention from Day #1. Remember, the last two WS winners were small-market teams.

 

Agree with u totally mrpaige.

Notice that I said I WASN'T a purist, and I never bashed the current system... I just feel that it shouldn't get as diluted as the NBA or Hockey.

I do feel that the NFL has a perfect set number of playoff teams, but they also have the benefit of having only a 16 game season... making each game have almost as much intensity of a "playoff" game.

I also agree that baseball has to decide whether or not pennant races/ historical integrity are more important than adding new twists/ generating more hope for teams... eventually, I just feel that the percieved benefits of the latter still can't outweigh the vast history of baseball, even though it ISN'T our national pastime anymore.

And, while an expaneded playoffs would generate more interest for said teams on the cusp of making the playoffs, it WOULDN'T allow teams like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Colorado, Texas, Montreal... etc... (perrenial bottom-feeders) to automatically start feeling optimistic.

There are still far too many problems w/ team's front office management, and the overall labor structure... and I feel that fixing THOSE problems will provide a better solution, and allows you to keep the one thing that baseball has going for it... its long history.

 

They had the best record in the NL in '98 & '01.

Just to put in my 2 bits...the only changes I would make to the current playoff format are:
- Divisional Series of 7 games
- Get rid of the rule stating that a Division winner cannot face a wildcard team from the same division in the Div. Series
- Team with the better record gets home field advantage in the W.S.

 

Uh, wrong am I. '98 Braves won 106, 'Stros won 102.

In '01 the Co-ards would have won the NL East, and the 'Stros would have won the West.

 

Now the latest rumor is the Yankees are going after Greg Maddux. This is probally just bs but will really piss me off it happens.

Just a random comment about small market teams wining the WS. Everyone is always quick to cite the Marlins as an example of what a small market team can do. What many forget is that they had an extremely high payroll the first time they won the WS. After they won they traded all of their high priced players for prospects. Now that all of these prospects have developed they are competative. This model isnt possible for most other small market teams. Oakland followed a similar method with accumulating great pitching prospects while being medocre for quite a while.

Also, Who is Sam Horn? I did a google search on him and only came up with some scrub player from the 80's. I this a Boston thing i dont get?

 

Sam Horn was the man when he first came up - he was going to be Mo Vaughn before anybody knew who Mo Vaughn was! When he homered in his first Fenway Park at-bat, everybody thought he'd be the next Babe Ruth. A few years later, he was out of baseball. He was a rather rotund fellow, too.

 

This thread is starting to look like a commercial for SoSH.

 

I temporarily lost my mind and, for some reason, put the DBacks as the NL West winner that year when I was making my list, even though the Astros did best them by two games.

I still maintain that interest in the Stros would be less if they had only appeared in the playoffs in 1980, 1986 and 2001 in their entire history. Just as I imagine that we wouldn't remember the Oilers (especially the Luv Ya Blue era) quite as fondly if they didn't make the playoffs until 1991 (which, I believe, was the first time they won their division outright).

 

The Rangers problem isn't their lack of revenue, though. They make more money than a lot of teams that make the playoffs regularly. They just have extremely poor management, coupled now with a need for the owner to generate cash to stave off bankruptcy of his non-sports companies.

Colorado is another example of poor management and factors other than money being a problem. They are a high revenue team.

If Colorado and Texas (a team that would've made the playoffs three times in the last ten years under the old system, compared to the Astros one appearance) can't make it under the current system, then it really is just six teams (Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Mariners, Braves and Giants) and then everyone else.

Montreal needs to either get an owner or move someplace else. But even with that, they were in contention for at least part of the season (and would've been later in the season if there were three Wild Cards instead of one).

But even with NFL-style revenue sharing, there will still be bottom-feeders. The NFL even has them. More often than not, the Cardinals and the Bengals are bad teams. The Seahawks have had a long run of not being very good (that's seemingly coming to an end). And so on.

There may simply never be a time when the Brewers aren't at the bottom of the standings.

The point I am trying to make is that revenue sharing alone won't make baseball popular again. They need to open up the playoffs a little more, too, to give each team a better chance to compete in any given year. And that's something they could do now to improve the game.

Revenue sharing is obviously not going to happen any time soon, so why beat the dead horse? Find something else to improve the game. I think expanding the playoffs does that.

 

No joke. I sure could use a BBS Tivo to edit out all of Manny's constant pimping of SoSH.

 

another reason why this sport needs a cap limit!