Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No I would do EXACTLY what the Yankees are doing. As do about 6 other teams. I think you are missing my point. Some teams can or WANT to spend while others can't or don't. Two different playing surfaces for the fans.
But the key is those six teams are able to generate more revenue by TV. So they have more money...its a cycle ..
Ok
Remembering that MLB is a a business.
Do you the MLB earns more money with successful Yankee teams or with successful A's teams?
I have followed the A's for four decades now and what I wrote previously is true, they are attempting to be competitive, but their finances are such that they can only do so for a window of a few years at a time. Then they must rebuild the club. I have seen no evidence that they are content to coast as a profitable but losing club.
If that is a naive belief, then please bring out your evidence which supports your accusation. Right now it is merely an assertion on your part for which you have provided no basis. As I noted, after a successful eight year run, they needed five years to make another one. That lasted three years and then all the stars like Donaldson and Cespedes departed and they have had to start over again. In the past three seasons they have won 68, 69 and 75 games. They are working toward another competitive window and again as I noted, it keeps getting harder to do.
Your entire position seems derived from the simplistic notion that any club which is currently at the lower end of MLB profits, must not be trying. Listing Cleveland is clearly absurd, they were in the WS in 2016 and won a 100 games in 2017. How in the hell is that consistent with "no intention of competing?" There was a time when you would have been correct about the Pirates, but they too are doing what they can to win given their limited resources. They had a successful three year run after two decades of sub mediocrity, and now they will have to retool.
I don't think you will comply with my request for your evidence because I don't think you have any evidence. I think that you like to just shoot off a blunderbus opinion without much concern for the truth of matters.
First, i am an indians fan, and 2016 was a fluke. They are only competetive for a few years, then dismantle and rebuild. Its a cycle they go through. Competitive teams keep their free agents. The indians have lost 5 key players and replaced one with Yonder ****ing Alonso. They will not retool. In fact, they will probably be sellers at the deadline. As for teams like the A's and the pirates, they cry poverty , yet where exactly does the revenue sharing money go?
Astros are another team. They have one more year to go before theyll have to start again, because they probably wont keep their free agents. So MLB consist of teams that spend money, and those that dont. But then why is there revenue sharing? I say get rid of revenue sharing and if a team cant make it, then they should fold.
I have followed the A's for four decades now and what I wrote previously is true, they are attempting to be competitive, but their finances are such that they can only do so for a window of a few years at a time. Then they must rebuild the club. I have seen no evidence that they are content to coast as a profitable but losing club.
If that is a naive belief, then please bring out your evidence which supports your accusation. Right now it is merely an assertion on your part for which you have provided no basis. As I noted, after a successful eight year run, they needed five years to make another one. That lasted three years and then all the stars like Donaldson and Cespedes departed and they have had to start over again. In the past three seasons they have won 68, 69 and 75 games. They are working toward another competitive window and again as I noted, it keeps getting harder to do.
Your entire position seems derived from the simplistic notion that any club which is currently at the lower end of MLB profits, must not be trying. Listing Cleveland is clearly absurd, they were in the WS in 2016 and won a 100 games in 2017. How in the hell is that consistent with "no intention of competing?" There was a time when you would have been correct about the Pirates, but they too are doing what they can to win given their limited resources. They had a successful three year run after two decades of sub mediocrity, and now they will have to retool.
I don't think you will comply with my request for your evidence because I don't think you have any evidence. I think that you like to just shoot off a blunderbus opinion without much concern for the truth of matters.
and if the A's are trying to compete, why trade Sonny Gray while still under control for 2 more seasons?
First, i am an indians fan, and 2016 was a fluke. They are only competetive for a few years, then dismantle and rebuild. Its a cycle they go through. Competitive teams keep their free agents. The indians have lost 5 key players and replaced one with Yonder ****ing Alonso. They will not retool. In fact, they will probably be sellers at the deadline. As for teams like the A's and the pirates, they cry poverty , yet where exactly does the revenue sharing money go?
Astros are another team. They have one more year to go before theyll have to start again, because they probably wont keep their free agents. So MLB consist of teams that spend money, and those that dont. But then why is there revenue sharing? I say get rid of revenue sharing and if a team cant make it, then they should fold.
You have now changed your assertion. Clearly the description above describes a Cleveland team which intends to be as competitive as it can be within the financial limitations it faces. That is not what you stated previously, you stated that the Indians were a farm team which only makes money via revenue sharing and isn't serious about competing. You should try and make up your mind before your next post...are the Indians competing but forced to do so in affordable cycles, or are they just content to make money while losing? You cannot have it both ways.
And the evidence about the A's I requested? Suspiciously absent.
You are not providing us with any reason to take your assertions seriously.
Last edited by Grandstander; 01-07-2018 at 02:59 PM..
First, i am an indians fan, and 2016 was a fluke. They are only competetive for a few years, then dismantle and rebuild. Its a cycle they go through. Competitive teams keep their free agents. The indians have lost 5 key players and replaced one with Yonder ****ing Alonso. They will not retool. In fact, they will probably be sellers at the deadline. As for teams like the A's and the pirates, they cry poverty , yet where exactly does the revenue sharing money go?
Astros are another team. They have one more year to go before theyll have to start again, because they probably wont keep their free agents. So MLB consist of teams that spend money, and those that dont. But then why is there revenue sharing? I say get rid of revenue sharing and if a team cant make it, then they should fold.
This post is a damn mess
2016 was a fluke?
They won 94 games
They've averaged 91 wins over the last 5 seasons.
How on earth is that a fluke?
Yes, it is a cycle that teams go through. Almost all teams go through periods where they are more competitive and when they are less competitive. Even the uber-rich Yankees.
Again, MLB is a business, do you think they make more money if they fold up ten teams or if they don't?
What would they gain by folding up teams?
You have now changed your assertion. Clearly the description above describes a Cleveland team which intends to be as competitive as it can be within the financial limitations it faces. That is not what you stated previously, you stated that the Indians were a farm team which only makes money via revenue sharing and isn't serious about competing. You should try and make up your mind before your next post...are the Indians competing but forced to do so in affordable cycles, or are they just content to make money while losing? You cannot have it both ways.
And the evidence about the A's I requested? Suspiciously absent.
You are not providing us with any reason to take your assertions seriously.
They've attempted to stop being the farm system when Francona was hired, yet still don't retain their free agents.
The rich teams, like the Yankees, go through significant less lows , obviously.
Lastly, the A's are a joke but you seem too blinded by loyalty to realize it. The A's will never win anything again. The Royals have only been good for three years in my lifetime and will continue to stink for the next decade. Based on payroll alone, you can predict most of the playoff field for 2018
They've attempted to stop being the farm system when Francona was hired, yet still don't retain their free agents.
The rich teams, like the Yankees, go through significant less lows , obviously.
Lastly, the A's are a joke but you seem too blinded by loyalty to realize it. The A's will never win anything again. The Royals have only been good for three years in my lifetime and will continue to stink for the next decade. Based on payroll alone, you can predict most of the playoff field for 2018
And to answer your question, these teams try to give the appearance of trying to compete but in reality are happy just to collect money via revenue sharing.
They've attempted to stop being the farm system when Francona was hired, yet still don't retain their free agents.
They do not retain their free agents because they cannot afford to do so, not because they don't care about winning....which was your original argument. And now it was only up until they hired Francona? Another alteration of your original premise. When you back up like this, aren't you supposed to make a beeping noise?
Quote:
The rich teams, like the Yankees, go through significant less lows , obviously.
Again, a result of being able to sign and retain top talent, something denied to the less affluent teams.
Quote:
Lastly, the A's are a joke but you seem too blinded by loyalty to realize it. The A's will never win anything again. The Royals have only been good for three years in my lifetime and will continue to stink for the next decade. Based on payroll alone, you can predict most of the playoff field for 2018
I am not the sort of rah-rah fan who is blinded by anything. You present me with a choice between what I know to be true based on the evidence of my senses, and some bluster from someone who apparently knows nothing about the A's.
They do not retain their free agents because they cannot afford to do so, not because they don't care about winning....which was your original argument. And now it was only up until they hired Francona? Another alteration of your original premise. When you back up like this, aren't you supposed to make a beeping noise?
Again, a result of being able to sign and retain top talent, something denied to the less affluent teams.
I am not the sort of rah-rah fan who is blinded by anything. You present me with a choice between what I know to be true based on the evidence of my senses, and some bluster from someone who apparently knows nothing about the A's.
The problem here, other than your left coast, smug, elitism , is that you believe there are rich teams and poor teams. I believe the poor teams aren't really poor; they just choose not to spend money. I should have made that point earlier.
The problem here, other than your left coast, smug, elitism , is that you believe there are rich teams and poor teams. I believe the poor teams aren't really poor; they just choose not to spend money. I should have made that point earlier.
Yes, you have already indicated this. What you are not providing us is any reason to believe you. When someone makes a blank assertion such as you have, it is hardly elitism of any sort to request the grounds upon which the opinion is based. If no grounds are provided, it is hardly elitist to view that opinion as noise.
So far you have made noise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
