Question for Bankofamericasox fans

[Tunescribe]

Bankofamericasox fans:

How can anyone get excited about a team that wins its championships before the season even starts by throwing piles of money at high-priced free agents? What the Bankofamericasox are doing right now is what they were EXPECTED to do before the first ball was pitched. MLB is so non-competitive it's a joke. It's hard to imagine anyone jumping for joy over this team winning a World Series. Feeling a sense of relief, perhaps. But it's not like they're on the road to really accomplishing something.

 

[chicowalker]

My expectations are typically much higher for the Pats than the Sox.

I take it you don't follow baseball. Spending definitely means a team should do well, but winning it all is a different story. So are the Sox doing now what they "should" be doing? Yup. Doesn't make it less enjoyable as a fan.

Additionally, there are a lot of players on the team who came up with the club: Lester, Buchholz, Youk, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Papelbon, Bard, etc. And guys who've been with the club a long time, like tek and Wake. Pretty easy to root for those guys.

I'd contrast that with the Pats of a few seasons ago, when I realized there weren't all that many guys I particularly liked anymore. Brady, Faulk, some others, but a lot of the guys I liked were gone and a lot of their replacements weren't particularly likeable, imo. But with some recent drafts, I've found myself both with high expectations and liking a lot of the guys I'm rooting for.

 

[ausbacker]

Because most sporting leagues around the world don't employ salary caps in their competitions. Why does that mean I shouldn't enjoy the success of a team that I am lucky enough to follow because they have the ability to bankroll a better roster than most teams?

I dislike the fact that there's no salary structure to level the playing field in terms of player spending but as we've seen in competitions with "level" playing fields, there's plenty of ways to gain competitive advantages where it's assumed everyone pays within a certain percentage.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Bankofamericasox fans:

How can anyone get excited about a team that wins its championships before the season even starts by throwing piles of money at high-priced free agents? What the Bankofamericasox are doing right now is what they were EXPECTED to do before the first ball was pitched. MLB is so non-competitive it's a joke. It's hard to imagine anyone jumping for joy over this team winning a World Series. Feeling a sense of relief, perhaps. But it's not like they're on the road to really accomplishing something.

:bricks::bricks::bricks::bricks::bricks: Come on Tune ... ease up now ...

 

[The Brandon Five]

World Series Champs Last 10 Years:

2010 San Francisco Giants
2009 MFY's
2008 Phillies
2007 Red Sox
2006 Cardinals
2005 White Sox
2004 Red Sox (after an ungodly 86 year drought)
2003 Marlins
2002 Angels
2001 D-Backs

Yup, same teams every year

 

[Tunescribe]

World Series Champs Last 10 Years:

2010 San Francisco Giants
2009 MFY's
2008 Phillies
2007 Red Sox
2006 Cardinals
2005 White Sox
2004 Red Sox (after an ungodly 86 year drought)
2003 Marlins
2002 Angels
2001 D-Backs

Yup, same teams every year

Take it a step or two back to which teams make the playoffs, or win their divisions. The contrast between financial haves and have-nots is significant.

 

[ausbacker]

Take it a step or two back to which teams make the playoffs, or win their divisions. The contrast between financial haves and have-nots is significant.

Does the same competitive advantage not exist in the NFL though? By design the salary cap is supposed to even the playing field but it hasn't.

Good organizations are good organizations Tunescribe, no matter what the salary structure.

 

[Tunescribe]

Does the same competitive advantage not exist in the NFL though? By design the salary cap is supposed to even the playing field but it hasn't.

Good organizations are good organizations Tunescribe, no matter what the salary structure.

GOOD organization and coaching is where the competitive edge should come from, not which organization has the most money. If MLB had a salary cap, things would be much different.

 

[ausbacker]

GOOD organization and coaching is where the competitive edge should come from, not which organization has the most money. If MLB had a salary cap, things would be much different.

There's nothing to suggest that a salary cap = a fairer competition. Stop complaining because nobody gives a ****.

 

[Tunescribe]

There's nothing to suggest that a salary cap = a fairer competition. Stop complaining because nobody gives a ****.

Well, Aus, you apparently give a **** enough to comment. Anyway, a salary cap absolutely = fairer competition, because everyone starts at the same level. What separates teams is what SHOULD separate them: organization and coaching. And that is why the NFL is the best pro sport of all.

 

[ausbacker]

Well, Aus, you apparently give a **** enough to comment. Anyway, a salary cap absolutely = fairer competition, because everyone starts at the same level. What separates teams is what SHOULD separate them: organization and coaching. And that is why the NFL is the best pro sport of all.

I don't care for your consistent inference about baseball and the Red Sox because it's an asinine position to hold, especially considering that you're normally a good poster.

Salary caps (I'm in favor of them) have a small influence on any team. Coaching and resources allocated to service that team in every single sport coupled with talent is what sets successful organizations on their paths (as you rightfully point out).

It's why even in sports dominated by a small collection of teams, the best continue to be those with the best coaching.

 

[Tunescribe]

I don't care for your consistent inference about baseball and the Red Sox because it's an asinine position to hold, especially considering that you're normally a good poster.

Salary caps (I'm in favor of them) have a small influence on any team. Coaching and resources allocated to service that team in every single sport coupled with talent is what sets successful organizations on their paths (as you rightfully point out).

It's why even in sports dominated by a small collection of teams, the best continue to be those with the best coaching.

I think my OP is a legitimate observation and an honest question. Salary caps (the NFL is the only sport I'm aware of that has a hard cap) ensure that every team has exactly the same financial resources at its disposal. Baseball, much more than football, is an individual-skill sport where the right two or three high-priced free agents can make a season. Even a lousy baseball manager can win with star pitching and hitting. With the moneybags ownership he enjoys, I doubt we'll ever know just how good Terry Francona really is.

 

[ausbacker]

I think my OP is a legitimate observation and an honest question. Salary caps (the NFL is the only sport I'm aware of that has a hard cap) ensure that every team has exactly the same financial resources at its disposal. Baseball, much more than football, is an individual-skill sport where the right two or three high-priced free agents can make a season. Even a lousy baseball manager can win with star pitching and hitting. With the moneybags ownership he enjoys, I doubt we'll ever know just how good Terry Francona really is.

The same could be said for Tom Brady and the Patriots. If Andy Reid were coaching them would the course of the Patriots still be the same? Would the Yankees win with someone else than Girardi? In today's game the haves and have nots are different but I'm not silly enough to believe that the group of haves is small in the MLB, because it isn't.

It is what it is Tune.

 

[chicowalker]

I think my OP is a legitimate observation and an honest question. ...

Sounds more like you're just trying to start an argument.

I understand it's been a slow offseason (football wise) due to the lockout, but I'm not sure what the point is. (That goes for all arguments about which sport is "better." Plenty of folks will tell you and me that they don't like football because there is so little action. Do you care if they dislike it?)

...I doubt we'll ever know just how good Terry Francona really is.

Do many people really care just how good Francona is?

I know I'm a lifelong baseball / Sox fan, and my interest in "who's the better manager" is somewhere close to zero.

...the right two or three high-priced free agents can make a season. ....

Again, you may want to clarify your argument. Can the right 2 or 3 high-priced free agents make a team competitive? Possibly -- though teams signing 2 or 3 high-priced free agents in an offseason isn't all that common.

But can they make the season in terms of actually winning it all? not sure the last time that occurred.

 

[Real World]

Basically the Redsox have become the Yankees. There's nothing wrong with that, but some fans who disliked the Yankees ability to "buy" players and/or championship as they saw it, don't like that the Redsox do the same. I give credit to people who stick to their core beliefs like Tune is.

 

[chicowalker]

Basically the Redsox have become the Yankees. There's nothing wrong with that, but some fans who disliked the Yankees ability to "buy" players and/or championship as they saw it, don't like that the Redsox do the same. I give credit to people who stick to their core beliefs like Tune is.

That's not quite true. The Sox are always significantly below the Yanks, within the next tier of payroll, roughly a handful of teams that are paying well more than most other teams but well less than the Yanks.

If tunescribe doesn't like the financial disparity in baseball, that's fine -- nobody's forcing him to watch baseball, as far as I know. But why start an antagonistic thread just because you don't happen to like it? It's like the people who feel compelled to start arguments about soccer sucking every time the sport gets any mainstream attention in the US; if you don't like it, don't watch it.

 

[Real World]

That's not quite true. The Sox are always significantly below the Yanks, within the next tier of payroll, roughly a handful of teams that are paying well more than most other teams but well less than the Yanks.

Chico, they've become the Yankees. If it makes you feel better that the Sox spend $20 or so million less, so be it.

If tunescribe doesn't like the financial disparity in baseball, that's fine -- nobody's forcing him to watch baseball, as far as I know. But why start an antagonistic thread just because you don't happen to like it? It's like the people who feel compelled to start arguments about soccer sucking every time the sport gets any mainstream attention in the US; if you don't like it, don't watch it.

This is an internet discussion forum, is it not? To use your own point, nobody's forcing you to post in here as far as I know, so if you don't like his thread, don't post.

 

[chicowalker]

Chico, they've become the Yankees. If it makes you feel better that the Sox spend $20 or so million less, so be it.
...)

You can repeat your claim all you want, but I'm going by facts. I'd wager the Sox haven't been within $20mm of the Yanks since before 2000.

If you want to demonstrate that what I said was inaccurate, go ahead. If the Sox have become the Yanks, that means a handful of teams have become the Yanks -- i.e., that there has been a structural shift in the sport. and maybe that has been the case. But the Yankees have the highest payroll year in and year out, and by a wide margin (and that's versus the next highest team, which often isn't the Sox).

but it's not a matter of me feeling better or worse. I have no problem with the Yankees, Sox or any other teams spending their $ (and never have).

...This is an internet discussion forum, is it not? To use your own point, nobody's forcing you to post in here as far as I know, so if you don't like his thread, don't post.

Sure -- but there's a difference, imo, between an honest discussion and an antagonistic one. I gave him the benefit of the doubt despite the tone of the first post, but I'm pretty sure he proved me wrong for doing so.

As I asked before: Why start an antagonistic thread just because you don't happen to like it [baseball]?

 

[Real World]

You can repeat your claim all you want, but I'm going by facts. I'd wager the Sox haven't been within $20mm of the Yanks since before 2000.

If you want to demonstrate that what I said was inaccurate, go ahead. If the Sox have become the Yanks, that means a handful of teams have become the Yanks -- i.e., that there has been a structural shift in the sport. and maybe that has been the case. But the Yankees have the highest payroll year in and year out, and by a wide margin (and that's versus the next highest team, which often isn't the Sox).

but it's not a matter of me feeling better or worse. I have no problem with the Yankees, Sox or any other teams spending their $ (and never have).

I hope you're not a betting man chico. In 2000, 2001, and 2002 they were less than $20 million apart. Infact, in 2001 I think they were $2.5 million apart, and both over $100 million in payroll. The Yankees got ******ed with spending thereafter. This year I think the Yanks are at $200 and the Sox at $160, with Philly somewhere in between with the Lee signing (the favorite to win it all for me btw). The bottom line though, is that to the rest of the league, or the vast majority of the league if you prefer, the Redsox (and Phillies) have become the Yankees. Few teams can make the mistakes, or sign the players that the Sox sign. So while they may not be tit for tat exact, they are one and the same to the majority of the league. Before teams had to worry about the Yanks signing multiple players to those monster deals. Not anymore. $142 million for Carl Crawford? Very good player, but a very absurd deal. Good for them though. If you have it, spend it. It sucks for the little guys, but like I say, in the end I root for the laundry.

Sure -- but there's a difference, imo, between an honest discussion and an antagonistic one. I gave him the benefit of the doubt despite the tone of the first post, but I'm pretty sure he proved me wrong for doing so.

As I asked before: Why start an antagonistic thread just because you don't happen to like it [baseball]?

Why post in a thread that annoys you, if you don't like the content?

 

[chicowalker]

I hope you're not a betting man chico. In 2000, 2001, and 2002 they were less than $20 million apart. Infact, in 2001 I think they were $2.5 million apart, and both over $100 million in payroll. The Yankees got ******ed with spending thereafter. This year I think the Yanks are at $200 and the Sox at $160, with Philly somewhere in between with the Lee signing (the favorite to win it all for me btw). The bottom line though, is that to the rest of the league, or the vast majority of the league if you prefer, the Redsox (and Phillies) have become the Yankees. Few teams can make the mistakes, or sign the players that the Sox sign. So while they may not be tit for tat exact, they are one and the same to the majority of the league. Before teams had to worry about the Yanks signing multiple players to those monster deals. Not anymore. $142 million for Carl Crawford? Very good player, but a very absurd deal. Good for them though. If you have it, spend it. It sucks for the little guys, but like I say, in the end I root for the laundry....

I am a betting man, but nobody took me up on the bet. ah, well, I was close, but no cigar. (but it's not $20mm or so, either)

I agree with the rest of what you said, though. Like I said initially in response, maybe there's been a structural shift, but the Yanks are still head and shoulders above the Sox and the rest of the top tier(s?) in spending.

I'm bored and need some coffee, so I'm taking a look at payroll figures from USA today, which are consistent with what you posted here. Sox are the only team in the top 5 besides the Yanks each of the past 5 years or so, but only once (I think) were they the #2 team. Mets and Angels and Tigers were in a few years, now the Phils as you point out.

Also, Yanks have been fairly consistent in their spending. What's changed is the other teams. As might be expected, more teams are spending more $. (I don't know where the soft cap has been each year -- that certainly could have something to do with where most other high-spending teams are.) If you went back 4 or 5 years, the gap was $70mm -- 200ish to 130ish -- a gap that then fit more than a dozen of the next highest teams. Now it's 30, a gap that only encompasses the next 3 or so highest.

Do the Sox have the same kind of advantage as the Yanks in terms of ability to take risks and weather mistakes? Without question.

the only think I take issue with is that the Yanks are still in a league of their in terms of their spending. This year the gap b/t them and the Sox is $41mm, last year it was $44. That's Sabathia and either Rivera or Teixeira, roughly speaking.

...Why post in a thread that annoys you, if you don't like the content?

So no answer to my question, it appears?

(In all seriousness, I have no problem with the content if it's an honest discussion.)