OT: Boston Success Question

[Pujo]

sidetracking here, but I was looking at the cities(and stadiums) which have hosted the superbowl and have noticed that Boston has never hosted one and isn't scheduled to in the next few years-why? Boston is a perfectly capable city as is the gillette a capable stadium, also why are most superbowls hosted in southern states?(e.g florida, california, texas, louisiana)

Good luck getting celebrities & politicians to sit outside for 5 hours when it's 10 degrees below zero. Superbowl venues either have to be in warm locations or be domed.

 

[NJPatsfan26]

Good luck getting celebrities & politicians to sit outside for 5 hours when it's 10 degrees below zero. Superbowl venues either have to be in warm locations or be domed.

So then how in the wide world of sports is in 2011 or 12...not sure...its going to be in Indy.....thats ALOT colder than NE is.....

 

[Kontradiction]

So then how in the wide world of sports is in 2011 or 12...not sure...its going to be in Indy.....thats ALOT colder than NE is.....

Maybe because Indy is domed?

 

[NJPatsfan26]

Maybe because Indy is domed?

well that goes without question.....

 

[upstater1]

This doesn't seem like a good way to describe the Red Sox, who have a plethora of young players with star potential, many of whom were crucial in delivering the World Series Title last fall. It takes planning in modern baseball to use your farm system to effectively produce quality ball players. Spending big isn't the key to success in baseball, there are examples of this spread widely throughout the last 10 years.

On the original topic:

I'd say good fortune is likely the biggest reason that there has been so much success. We've all seen what injury bugs can do to even the best management's "plans" for a team's given season. Add to that the "pieces-falling-into-place" factor that is so obvious at the end of any year which I feel requires a great deal of luck, in addition to skill on the part of the GM's, and I think you can get the sense that I'm trying to portray.

I do feel that the success is somewhat contageous throughout the professional organizations in the city. Teams have taken it upon themselves to put good product on the court/field because they know they'll be rewarded with Boston/New England fans putting their butts in seats and buying logo'd stuff.

You need $$$ to have a good farm system. The Sox ramped up spending on their farm players quickly. Heck, look at the draft where the Sox have been routinetly landing the big guns that other teams shy away from because they are difficult signings. The Sox did it again this year. That QB commit for Tennessee is one of the top handful of baseball players coming out. The Sox have no business landing him. But with their money, they are going to try to wow him and pry him from Tennessee.

Then you look at the Schilling trade, the Beckett trade, etc. Teams give up talent because they can no longer pay their players. How many team can make mistakes like Drew, Renteria, etc. and yet come out of such debacles and move on. if the Sox weren't willing to swallow big contracts (as in Renteria's case) they'd be stuck right now. Drew is doing great now, but whether he keeps it up or not hardly even matters.

I'd venture to say that unless you're the Mets, it would be difficult to be bad and pay that much for players. The Sox spend, spend, spend.

 

[BadMoFo]

well that goes without question.....

So what is your point? It's been in Detroit before. Cold weather, but domed. New England will never get one because they have cold weather and no dome.

 

[NJPatsfan26]

So what is your point? It's been in Detroit before. Cold weather, but domed. New England will never get one because they have cold weather and no dome.

You answered my question. It will never be in New England due to the lack of the dome.....

I was only saying that Indy is doomed....thats all....

 

[nepatz11]

The answer is clear: The fans. The fans/market here are more passionate than in other cities for ALL sports. Other markets may have one team they are obsessed with Boston has two (Pats and Sox) and the Celts are fast climbing. The tremendous fan base allowed good owners to come in.

Also always remember that Boston is a large media market but that the Catchement area of the Boston teams extends to all of New England which makes the area even bigger. Also most large media markets have two teams in many sports Boston has one in each.

 

[Kontradiction]

The fans/market here are more passionate than in other cities for ALL sports.

Wow. You must live in the vacuum that is Boston. Newsflash - fanbases in every area are crazy about their teams. Even in Miami the last five years, the Fins, Marlins, and Heat are all very, very hot topics with tremendous fan bases despite the fact that the Heat are the only team in those last five years to bring home a championship.

Besides, attendance at Foxboro was WAY down before the 2001 season. We do have rabid fan bases with the Pats and the Sox but, let's face it, Foxboro wasn't exactly "jam packed" before 2001.

Oh, and to be fair, Philly's fanbase is a lot more rabid than Boston's.

 

[SMB]

Great owners who actually care about the product they put out.

 

[Foley]

You need $$$ to have a good farm system. The Sox ramped up spending on their farm players quickly. Heck, look at the draft where the Sox have been routinetly landing the big guns that other teams shy away from because they are difficult signings. The Sox did it again this year. That QB commit for Tennessee is one of the top handful of baseball players coming out. The Sox have no business landing him. But with their money, they are going to try to wow him and pry him from Tennessee.

Typically its teams like the Rays, the Pirates and the Royals that spend the most money in the draft, actually. Most sources believe Kelly (their first round pick) will be asking for about $2M. Conversely, the first round picks of the Rays and the Pirates (and most other top-10 picks) will be asking for $5-7M. The Sox may end up spending $.5M more on Kelly than they would if they selected someone who projected at their slot. Talent-wise (he was ranked the 19th best prospect in the draft) he wasn't drafted all that much lower than expected.

Then you look at the Schilling trade, the Beckett trade, etc. Teams give up talent because they can no longer pay their players. How many team can make mistakes like Drew, Renteria, etc. and yet come out of such debacles and move on. if the Sox weren't willing to swallow big contracts (as in Renteria's case) they'd be stuck right now. Drew is doing great now, but whether he keeps it up or not hardly even matters.

Teams eat up contracts all the time. The Florida Marlins, with the lowest payroll in baseball, are swallowing $4M for former players. The Oakland A's (3rd lowest payroll) are swallowing $5M. The Pirates (4th lowest) are swallowing $9.8M. The Nationals (5th lowest) are swallowing $5M. The Royals (6th lowest) are swallowing $5.7M. The Red Sox (4th highest) are swallowing $4M. The Red Sox do not swallow big contracts any more than some of the lowest payrolls in the league.

Last year the DBacks had the 5th lowest payroll in baseball, yet made the playoffs for the first time in 5 years despite swallowing $16.4M.

I'd venture to say that unless you're the Mets, it would be difficult to be bad and pay that much for players. The Sox spend, spend, spend.

Actually the Red Sox lowered payroll by over $10M this offseason. In fact, the ownership group has lowered payroll in 4 of the 6 years since they took over.

Since 2002 the Red Sox payroll increased by $25M. In that same span the Mets payroll increased by $43M, the White Sox payroll by $64M, the Tigers payroll by $82M, the Angels payroll by $58M, the Cubs payroll by $43M, and the Yankees payroll by $84M. The Red Sox have been rather conservative with spending relative to all the other big market teams, yet have much more success. Just because a team spends a lot of money does not mean they'll do better.

 

[CamNeely8]

Wow. You must live in the vacuum that is Boston. Newsflash - fanbases in every area are crazy about their teams. Even in Miami the last five years, the Fins, Marlins, and Heat are all very, very hot topics with tremendous fan bases despite the fact that the Heat are the only team in those last five years to bring home a championship.

Besides, attendance at Foxboro was WAY down before the 2001 season. We do have rabid fan bases with the Pats and the Sox but, let's face it, Foxboro wasn't exactly "jam packed" before 2001.

Oh, and to be fair, Philly's fanbase is a lot more rabid than Boston's.

Actually the Pats have sold out every game since the day Parcells took over I believe. Not just since 2001.

Before that it was mediocre product at best on the field. From 86-96 was alot of down years. Would you have paid money to go see Tommy Hodson? Marc Wilson? Hugh Millen?

 

[Pujo]

The fans/market here are more passionate than in other cities for ALL sports.

I've been to NFL games in Dallas, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, and Cleveland and I can tell you that is not true. We might have the most passionate baseball fans here, but that says more about the nationwide apathy toward baseball than anything else. Football? Not even close.

 

[Michael]

Wow. You must live in the vacuum that is Boston. Newsflash - fanbases in every area are crazy about their teams. Even in Miami the last five years, the Fins, Marlins, and Heat are all very, very hot topics with tremendous fan bases despite the fact that the Heat are the only team in those last five years to bring home a championship.

Besides, attendance at Foxboro was WAY down before the 2001 season. We do have rabid fan bases with the Pats and the Sox but, let's face it, Foxboro wasn't exactly "jam packed" before 2001.

Oh, and to be fair, Philly's fanbase is a lot more rabid than Boston's.

Wrong on all counts.

 

[upstater1]

Teams eat up contracts all the time. The Florida Marlins, with the lowest payroll in baseball, are swallowing $4M for former players. The Oakland A's (3rd lowest payroll) are swallowing $5M. The Pirates (4th lowest) are swallowing $9.8M. The Nationals (5th lowest) are swallowing $5M. The Royals (6th lowest) are swallowing $5.7M. The Red Sox (4th highest) are swallowing $4M. The Red Sox do not swallow big contracts any more than some of the lowest payrolls in the league.

The point I was making is this: the reason teams give up Pedro Martinez, and Santana, and Beckett, etc., is because they can't pay them. We got Martinez for a bucket of baseballs. Only a few teams have the budget to load up like this.

All three of the teams that lost those three pitchers have small payrolls. Teams like Boston and New York take advantage of this situation.

 

[Lifer]

The reason is clear.
Its been the leadership, experience, toughness, and foresight of Hillary Clinton.

 

[Foley]

The point I was making is this: the reason teams give up Pedro Martinez, and Santana, and Beckett, etc., is because they can't pay them. We got Martinez for a bucket of baseballs. Only a few teams have the budget to load up like this.

All three of the teams that lost those three pitchers have small payrolls. Teams like Boston and New York take advantage of this situation.

It's usually because they won't pay them, not because they can't. Carl Pohlad (Minnesota) is the richest owner in baseball and the 4th richest in professional sports. Had he wanted to pay Santana, he would have. Jeffrey Loria (Florida) is also one of the cheapest owners in sports. He has they money, he just won't spend it.

The Texas Rangers (10th lowest payroll) and the Twins agreed to a trade for Santana this off season, but Santana nixed it. They were more than willing to give him an extension larger than the one he got with the Mets. When the Sox traded for Pedro they were in the middle of the pack for payroll. So half the league could have loaded up had they managed a better package of prospects. Money and resources aren't everything. Smart moves can compensate for a low payroll (Oakland, Tampa, Arizona, etc), but a high payroll can't always compensate for bad moves (Seattle, Mets, Dodgers, etc).

 

[SammyBlueCat]

It all starts with stable ownership that's committed to winning. They bring in strong personnel guys who can recruit and work within the league's salary cap situations. They also bring in strong coaches who can adapt and manage today's type of players (rich, spoiled, arrogant, ego). Ultimately it comes down to the players who want to play for the coach and are willing to put their egos aside to work toward a common goal.

You nailed it! Commitment to winning is the key.

 

[Patjew]

I think I've figured it out. When I attend the league championship, they lose - i.e., the Super Bowl. When I watch the league championships from Asia (NBA Finals and World Series), they win.

Now I can't take credit for getting them TO the championship game(s). Someone else must be controlling that. But when they're there... it's all me.

 

[signbabybrady]

Actually the Pats have sold out every game since the day Parcells took over I believe. Not just since 2001.

Before that it was mediocre product at best on the field. From 86-96 was alot of down years. Would you have paid money to go see Tommy Hodson? Marc Wilson? Hugh Millen?

yes, yes, yes......