Are the Indians really a farm team for other major league teams. (playoff, hockey)

[Grandstander]

In the last five seasons, the Indians have been competitive twice, played .500 once and not been in the race twice. From the historical view, this is far to small a sampling of poor play to argue that the current club belongs with what have been MLB's true Triple A Plus teams.

The most famous is the Kansas City A's franchise, 1955 through 1967. They staged 13 consecutive losing seasons before bailing out to Oakland. During this time the team survived by selling or trading all of their rising star players to the New York Yankees in exchange for the Yankees' past their prime aging stars. Best known among these sweetheart deals was the A's sending Roger Maris to New York in exchange for Hank Bauer who was two seasons away from retirement. (Marv Throneberry was also thrown in on the deal....there's a piece of trivia for you, Maris was traded for Throneberry.) Charley Finley put an end to the practice when he bought the A's in 1960, but while the fans got endless gimmicks and stunt promotions, they still didn't get a winning team.

The A's have been a farm franchise of sorts in each of their three cities. They did it twice in Philadelphia. Between 1910 and 1914, the A's appeared in four World Series, winning three of them. This was the famous "100,000 Dollar Infield" club and in 1915, with the new Federal League now offering competitive salaries, Connie Mack declared that he wasn't going to reward these prima donnas and most of his stars signed with the new league. The A's instantly dropped to .283 ball and remained god awful for the next ten seasons. Then a new dynasty, built around Hall of Famers Lefty Grove, Al Simmons, Jimmie Foxx and Mickey Cochrane arose. They appeared in three consecutive World Series, '29-'31, and won twice. Mack was suffering as a consequence of the Great Depression, and he sold off all of his stars before the start of the 1933 season. This triggered 13 consecutive losing seasons for the A's.

In Oakland, the A's won five consecutive division titles, '71-'75, appeared in and won three straight World Series, and then as a response to the birth of the free agency era, Charlie Finley attempted to sell off his stars, and when that was overruled by the commissioner, he traded them all away or watched them walk as free agents. A period of Triple A level play for the A's followed, climaxing in the '79 "Boat People" team, one of the worst ever. They lost 108 games and finished dead last in every single statistical category available, hitting, pitching and fielding.

And the current A's appear to be doing it again. Out the door have gone Giambi, Tejada, Zitto, Muldair, Husdon, Haren, Dye, Damon......

The Minnesota Twins were another ML level farm club for an extended period of time. Owned in the '70's by tightwad penny pinching Cal Griffith, and in the '80's by tightwad, penny pinching Carl Pohlad, the team was most famous for being unable to retain the many star players they had developed. Rod Carew, Larry Hisle, Lyman Bostock, Ken Landreaux, Dan Ford...all casualties of owner cheapness. During this stretch, the team finished sub .500 most seasons, or just above it in a few others.

So...we will need a few years to see if the Indians have given up and intend to make money with a third rate team which isn't competitive. Other teams have had "White Flag" seasons which were retooling moves for being competitive again in the very near future. That isn't the same as just going through the motions and making a living off cheap players only. Maybe that is what the Indians are doing.

[CTownNative]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

Let's go back to the early seventies when Vernon Stouffer rejected George Steinbrenner's offer to buy the Indians for $8.6 million. Not long afterward, George purchased the Yankees for $10 million. If Steinbrenner had been running the Indians for the past 35 years, today's Indian fans would be counting the championship flags instead of complaining about being in a small market. Ironically, Stouffer is buried in the same town where Steinbrenner was born, Rocky River, Ohio.

Not really, because he wouldn't have made as much money off the Indians as he does off the Yankees. New York City is a much larger market.

[Lancet71]

Originally Posted by aardvarks

Am I going to have to start another the Red Sox are not the Yankees thread.

2009 MLB team payrolls | GetListy!!!

the Sox are 4th in payroll and are in line with, the Cubs, Tigers, Angels and Phillies. and are currently 80 million behind the Yanks.

so unless you're willing to say these teams can't spend like the Yanks, Mets, Cubs, Red Sox, Angels, Tigers and Phillies. Just say Yanks.

BTW is anyone glad there team, doesn't spend like the Yanks?
I wish the Red Sox had the Yankee payroll.

Every team has a choice on their payroll.A team like the Sox can easily spend as much but chose not to.The red sox are becoming a more national team every year.In the past the Yankees were the most popular team from state to state based on parafernalia sales but over the last 10 years the sox have improved in their sales greatly which means more money in their pockets so they could have spent more.Instead they took chances on Penny, Smoltz,and Baldelli. How did that work out?

[aardvarks]

Originally Posted by Lancet71

Every team has a choice on their payroll.A team like the Sox can easily spend as much but chose not to.The red sox are becoming a more national team every year.In the past the Yankees were the most popular team from state to state based on parafernalia sales but over the last 10 years the sox have improved in their sales greatly which means more money in their pockets so they could have spent more.Instead they took chances on Penny, Smoltz,and Baldelli. How did that work out?

Penny and Smoltz were low risk high reward guys, and Baldelli's currently our 4th of, having to go all year without Dice-K has hurt much more.

I highly doubt the Red Sox or any other team could spend what the Yankees spend, I can't find any real data regarding actual team revenue, the Forbes article said both the Sox and the Yanks lost money in 2007, which is BS because they fail to factor in the cable deals. But I suspect neither cleared all that much. Remember even though the Sox sell out every home game, Fenway only has 39,000 seats, the Yanks averaged 52,500 last yr.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by CTownNative

Not really, because he wouldn't have made as much money off the Indians as he does off the Yankees. New York City is a much larger market.

Steinbrenner started spending big money right off the bat after acquiring the team in 1973 and within 5 years had won 3 pennants and 2 World Series. Although he's never been the game's wealthiest owner, he has always tried to field a winner. If being in a large market is so all-important, why do we not have a Subway Series every year?

[edsg25]

WAIT! HOLD THE PRESSES!

Are you seriously telling me that a beautiful new retropark with all the bells and whistles paid for with tax payer money isn't the key to eternal pennant races, filled seats, happy fans, billions of dollars of downtown spending, and a cure for cancer and the common cold every year in every smaller market MLB city? And just think: Cleveland was merely jacobs before it got totally and forward thinkingly progressive.

Who knew.

[edsg25]

Seems to me that the logical place MLB is going is for Yankee money to squeeze out the other 29 teams and leave the Yankees with a real dilemma when it comes to filling that new megabillion stadium:

playing with themselves.

As that great New Yorker, George Castanza, might say:

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Lancet71]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Seems to me that the logical place MLB is going is for Yankee money to squeeze out the other 29 teams and leave the Yankees with a real dilemma when it comes to filling that new megabillion stadium:

playing with themselves.

As that great New Yorker, George Castanza, might say:

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Got to love the haters.If your team was doing everything possible you wouldn't be complaining,bu they're not!

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Lancet71

Got to love the haters.If your team was doing everything possible you wouldn't be complaining,bu they're not!

don't hate a thing. and I can live with both the Cubs and Sox having a bad season. I don't hate the Yankees, Lance; I hate how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in the crazy world of MLB.

and guess what? Chicago is one of the big boys, so I hardly am responding out of self-interest.

[Lancet71]

Originally Posted by edsg25

don't hate a thing. and I can live with both the Cubs and Sox having a bad season. I don't hate the Yankees, Lance; I hate how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in the crazy world of MLB.

and guess what? Chicago is one of the big boys, so I hardly am responding out of self-interest.

It's not the poor get poorer,it's the poor like pocketing Yankee and Red Sox,etc... revenue dollars instead of reinvesting into the team to make them better.The Yanks are not really in competition with anyone but the Sox most years so they try outdoing them and that includes going after free agents so the other guy doesn't get him alot of times.More then half our team are players that came up through our organization and not too many hired guns and that's what people forget.