|
Post by GL on Mar 28, 2011 10:09:34 GMT -5
So, a week away, how has your team held up during the spring? Anything to report or change about your standings/predictions for the year?
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Mar 30, 2011 11:48:57 GMT -5
I will never review my predictions based only on Spring Training. After all, the Royals have the best Spring Training record in the league, which should tell you exactly how important these games are. As for my team, the Mets are in deep trouble and it breaks my heart. The Wilpons are terrible owners and their involvement in this whole Bernie Madoff situation is a mess. I hate that the Mets have, in effect, become a small market team in terms of what they have available to spend.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 1, 2011 10:06:24 GMT -5
Hey, I think you have to include the Dodgers if you're going to talk about shitty owners. We're right up there with you, but I'll end up giving you guys the nod in terms of impact considering where you're at and what it means to the club. Sucks about the fact that you've had pretty much the last three years wiped out by injuries which looks to continue this year since you've already got three or four guys on the DL to start the season, but here's hoping you start off the season today with a win like my team last night.
And I'd also like a shout-out to CT for his team's game yesterday, already one of the ones to beat in terms of excitement for the year.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Apr 1, 2011 11:34:43 GMT -5
Yeah, the Dodgers ownership has some issues, but it is not even close to as bad as the Mets ownership. THe Mets are a NY franchise. They once had enough money to spend pretty damn close to the Yanks and Redsox levels. Today, they are a small market team. Much worse than the injuries and everything else, unless the Wilpons sell the team, I predict a late season fire sale on most of the Mets talent aside from David Wright. I finally understand how much it must have sucked for decades to be a Pirates or Brewers fan. The Mets just have too many fans to be in this kind of financial shape, though. Prior to this year it was no trouble to sell out Citi Financial Field. Now they can't, and its entirely because of decisions the Wilpons made as owners.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 4, 2011 10:03:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I get that as I've followed the stories in the Sports Page over here, and knowing the history and legacy of the franchise, I haven't felt that way but I can understand why you would feel that way towards the owners. We were similar over here when we had Rupert Murdoch as owner, and now with the McCourts, we're heading in the same direction but, like I said earlier, I think in terms of what it means to the fans, yours is a lot more significant and damaging. Ours is just embarrassing, yours is a disgrace to what it means in terms of the fans.
And I know it's only three games in, but you're not looking so bad right now at least so you're off to a good start.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Apr 4, 2011 12:53:51 GMT -5
No, they aren't looking that bad, yet, but that's par of the problem. Generally, I think that ESPN, SI, and most of the media are selling the Mets talent short. If they can stay reasonably healthy, I personally think they can win somewhere in the ballpark of 80 games. That is not a playoff record (I think you'l need at least 90 wins to get the Wildcard in the NL) but its respectable. The problem is, I foresee the Mets being in the playoff race at the end of the season (though I definitely don't see them as a playoff team) but I see the Wilpons taking that moment to sell off all of the talent for maximum value just like so many other small market teams do. It sucks, it highlights the main problem with baseball not having any kind of salary cap, and it is especially shitty because it is just not really easy to understand why that would happen to this franchise the way I can understand it with a team like the Royals
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 5, 2011 10:04:32 GMT -5
I don't think the Mets are going to be in the play-off race at all, I don't even see them finishing with 80 this year. 70-75 is more likely, especially considering the amount of time they'll have to face off against the NL East which to me is far too loaded for the Mets to make a dent. You've got the Braves and Phillies to contend with, and I think even the Marlins are better than the Mets this year, plus you also have to deal with the second-tier teams in the other two divisions like the Cardinals, Reds, Rockies and Padres in addition to the Brewers and Giants, which are all better, at least on paper, than the Mets this year. Not that they can't surprise us (like the Padres last year) but I think there's far too many good, better teams out there for the Mets to really make a playoff spot this year.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Apr 5, 2011 10:45:52 GMT -5
No, they will not make the playoffs. But I do think that they will be mentioned as one of the three or 4 teams with a shot at the wildcard. NOt as a frontrunner for it, or even as one of the more competitive teams, but as a team that is not mathematically eliminated from getting it in August and early September. The problem is, that will get the fans' hopes up just in time for the Wilpons to sell of the talent for maximum value to other teams around the league. That is my concern. Not that the Mets have a chance at winning anything, but that they are an average to slightly above average team, and that the ownership will not use that in order to assit with getting better results for the team.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 6, 2011 10:04:59 GMT -5
Oh, I see what you mean now. I get it.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 19, 2011 9:57:23 GMT -5
So, we're two weeks into the season, what's been the most surprising storyline/player/team you've seen so far? Answer any or all, just want to know your thoughts.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Apr 19, 2011 13:23:29 GMT -5
Well, I think this one is kinda easy to answer myself. The most surprising story line so far is a team story line. Namely, the Redsox were predicted to be one of the best teams in the league and most people have them winning the AL East, but so far they have been one of the worst, if not the worst, team in the league. Now, I don't think the poor play will continue, and I definitely won't count them out of winning the AL East. I will say, though, that it is quite clear that the shocking story thus far has been how awful they hav started the season.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Apr 21, 2011 8:36:44 GMT -5
I guess I have to add MLB taking over day to day operations of the Dodgers to this list of most surprising stories at this point. Sorry, but that is the proof that, great as the game of baseball is, MLB is probably the worst run professional sports league in the world. If you are not gonna have a salary cap, you have to have the league contract some of the failed teams. Personally, I'd rather see a salary cap in baseball, but that's just because I think the game would be better if, like other sports, all teams were capable of fielding talented line-ups
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 21, 2011 10:15:37 GMT -5
Frankly, I'd have to agree with you on both counts, man. To see such a team I love and admire for as long as I have reduced to such a state is pretty heartbreaking, especially considering the history and legacy they've had for as long as they've had. Once the crown jewel of the game in terms of stability and success, having only two or three owners since the start of the franchise's inception, now being reduced to a team where they're begging with open hearts for just a few pennies to cover the cost of players who don't have that much money to spend (it's not like we have someone of Manny's contract calibur to cover, I mean the most expensive player on the team is Ethier at around 13 million) so to have this happen is a really sad state for me, and to have it done at this point in time is a little easier to swallow than had it been done later on in the season, though I still fear for us in the draft and the trading deadline, as there's going to be nothing happening for them even if they've got something going while the other teams can do something about it.
Plus, you already know how I feel about teams that are so much higher in payroll than everybody else. I'd rather see everybody have 80-120 million with absolutely no spill-overs or undertowing, imagine the balance and competiveness of that kind of format.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Apr 21, 2011 14:39:06 GMT -5
I would agree with you, although I am not sure that 80-12-0 million is the right figure or not. You cannot just have a spending war between a small handful of teams buying up all of the free agent power every year, though. That is just bad for the game. I would like to see a salary cap as the solution. If they do not have a salary cap soon, the only other option will be to contract the league and get rid of some of the underperforming teams. That is not something anyone wants in any sport, and it would be especially bad in baseball. After all, we are now talking not just about irrelevant teams having these issues. The Dodgers and the Mets are having these problems as well as teams like the Royals. I don't think that anyone thinks that it would be in the best interest of the league to abandon franchises like the Dodgers or the Mets, but if they cannot afford to put a team on the field and there is no salary cap and revenue sharing plan established, that will soon enough be the only way to save MLB
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 22, 2011 10:03:35 GMT -5
I'm not so sure contraction is the only solution to save this. I think it's much more about the salary cap and finding a way to have every single team balanced all the way through their roster. How cool would it be for the game if the Royals had a rotation of C.C. Sabathia and Jon Lester combined with some of their upcoming arms? How good would the Pirates be if they had Mark Texeira at first base with their core selection of players? I agree, it shouldn't just be Yankees and Red Sox every winter going after the players you know are going to get $100 million, but I'd rather it come down to several issues:
1. Reduction in player salaries. Pujols is not worth $20 million in my mind, no one is. He ain't getting $30 either if I were an owner, especially at his age. You keep the salaries down, you keep the payroll down low.
2. Put a salary cap in place. Everyone is within $30-40 million of each other, it comes down to injury prevention, reserve performance and players playing to their capability through managerial moves rather than the philosophy of "He's not performing, what All-Star is available we can trade for to put in the line-up?" that's in place in Boston and New York.
That solves nearly every issue imaginable. The Mets now wouldn't be under the burden of having so many ham-fisted contracts they're crushed under currently (I think it's somewhere of around $30 million for players that they've released before the season, so that's not even money you're getting production from) and would allow them to be a lot more flexible and manageable in the future, while the cap makes sure that it's all even.
|
|