2007-2008 MLB Offseason Thread

[CC97]

Good, now we can't win the division or the wild-card!

Like you were going to finish ahead of Boston and New York anyway....

I advise you to check the 2006 AL East standings (also feel free to compare our record that year with your World Champions)

[CC97]

Good, now we can't win the division or the wild-card!

To add to that misery...

Apparently the Jays are looking to deal AJ Burnett, and it's rumored that the Mets may be one of the top suitors. We'll see where that goes.

Burnett's a head case, plus he's got 1 year left on his contract -- if we can get anyone decent for him I'd be happy.

[STL_Ian]

Can we get a salary cap already? PLEASE? When 80-85% of teams in a league enter a season without a realistic chance of winning a championship, something is wrong & it can't possibly be good for the sport as a whole.

[Audiodrama]

Can we get a salary cap already? PLEASE? When 80-85% of teams in a league enter a season without a realistic chance of winning a championship, something is wrong & it can't possibly be good for the sport as a whole.

Baseball revenues and attendance are at all-time highs. As long as they keep going up, and as long as the MLBPA exists, a salary cap is nowhere in sight.

As for the lack of a "realistic chance of winning a championship"...the 2003 Florida Marlins say hi.

To take that a step further, many owners go by the saying "just get in -- from there, it's a crapshoot." So, let's take a look at the four teams who made it to the LCS in both leagues this year. The Red Sox are obviously a juggernaut and finished second in total payroll at about $143 million. I'll give you that. The other three teams, however, weren't quite as expensive. The Indians, Diamondbacks and Rockies ranked 23rd, 25th and 26th in total 2007 payroll, respectively. The Indians were within a game of the World Series, and the Rockies actually made it there. If that's not a realistic chance of winning a title, I don't know what is.

[BB61]

It just goes to show that paying big bucks will not always win championships.

See: New York Yankees since 2001.

[Epiphanic]

Furthermore, sports with salary caps (see: NFL and NBA) have seen less parity than MLB. If parity is what you want, baseball does it as good (if not better) than anyone.

[rams80]

Good, now we can't win the division or the wild-card!

Like you were going to finish ahead of Boston and New York anyway....

I advise you to check the 2006 AL East standings (also feel free to compare our record that year with your World Champions)

Yeah...and then Boston renewed its berserker focus on spending money, and the Yankees continued to also try to buy their way to success. 2006 is going to be the high water mark for this group of Blue Jays.

[See Red]

It's not about spending the money, you have to spend the money smartly. The Red Sox did that by not budging on what they thought Pedro and Johnny Damon were worth and they let them walk. The Yankees haven't done that in a long time... they paid about $100 million more for A-Rod than any other team was willing to pay... insane. Red Sox have made their fair share of big money mistakes -- Drew and Lugo, so far -- but they've also been pretty good with their cheap alternatives, which more than make up for it.

edit: I'm assuming this link that was here is actually fake.

[rams80]

Can we get a salary cap already? PLEASE? When 80-85% of teams in a league enter a season without a realistic chance of winning a championship, something is wrong & it can't possibly be good for the sport as a whole.

Baseball revenues and attendance are at all-time highs. As long as they keep going up, and as long as the MLBPA exists, a salary cap is nowhere in sight.

As for the lack of a "realistic chance of winning a championship"...the 2003 Florida Marlins say hi.

To take that a step further, many owners go by the saying "just get in -- from there, it's a crapshoot." So, let's take a look at the four teams who made it to the LCS in both leagues this year. The Red Sox are obviously a juggernaut and finished second in total payroll at about $143 million. I'll give you that. The other three teams, however, weren't quite as expensive. The Indians, Diamondbacks and Rockies ranked 23rd, 25th and 26th in total 2007 payroll, respectively. The Indians were within a game of the World Series, and the Rockies actually made it there. If that's not a realistic chance of winning a title, I don't know what is.

The NL champion will not win the World Series for the foreseeable future at the rate baseball is going since 2003 (barring a similarly unlikely series of pitching ups that we saw out of Detroit in 2006)....so that argument is a red herring. Similarly...Boston, Los Angeles, New York, Cleveland, and Detroit are the only teams in the AL that have a realistic shot at making your "crapshoot" in the American league. In other words, opening day is 4 months away...and we have already eliminated 5/6ths of the MLB from realistic championship contention. How is that healthy for the sport? Also you can thank bandwagoning Yankee and Red Sox fans for your revenue growth.

Honestly, the only people who should like the status quo are the fans of the 5 "haves". Which you are.

Epiphanic....yeah, that's why we have the same teams in the NFL playoffs annually....

[Audiodrama]

http://macsmets.com/mlb/

Scott Kazmir back to the Mets... one of the worst trades ever comes full circle.

Are you sure that website's real?

[See Red]

http://macsmets.com/mlb/

Scott Kazmir back to the Mets... one of the worst trades ever comes full circle.

Are you sure that website's real?

Looking at it again, if I had to guess... I'd say no.

[CC97]

Good, now we can't win the division or the wild-card!

Like you were going to finish ahead of Boston and New York anyway....

I advise you to check the 2006 AL East standings (also feel free to compare our record that year with your World Champions)

Yeah...and then Boston renewed its berserker focus on spending money, and the Yankees continued to also try to buy their way to success. 2006 is going to be the high water mark for this group of Blue Jays.

Boston wasn't a high spender before 2007?

[rams80]

Good, now we can't win the division or the wild-card!

Like you were going to finish ahead of Boston and New York anyway....

I advise you to check the 2006 AL East standings (also feel free to compare our record that year with your World Champions)

Yeah...and then Boston renewed its berserker focus on spending money, and the Yankees continued to also try to buy their way to success. 2006 is going to be the high water mark for this group of Blue Jays.

Boston wasn't a high spender before 2007?

They seemed to let off a little after 2004. Toronto passing them in 2006 provided a nice wakeup call to them.

[See Red]

So the American League being the better league, and the more likely of the two to produce the World Series Champion, and having only five teams from that League that can realistically have a shot at being that team is different from the NBA, where the Western Conference will most likely produce the Champion, and only four or five teams have a legitimate shot at representing the West... how, exactly? How is it any different from the NFL, where the AFC will more than likely produce that team and there's less than four or five teams that have a legitimate shot at that?

The MLB has had more different Champions in the last twenty years than any of the other three leagues, yet somehow it has the least amount of parity? The NFL and NBA each have "dynasties" and a short list of teams with a legitimate shot of winning the Super Bowl every year. Sure, a team can surprise some people and make the playoffs, but of the last 20 or so Super Bowl Champions, how many of them came out of nowhere to win it? The Rams and maybe the Ravens?

[rams80]

So the American League being the better league, and the more likely of the two to produce the World Series Champion, and having only five teams from that League that can realistically have a shot at being that team is different from the NBA, where the Western Conference will most likely produce the Champion, and only four or five teams have a legitimate shot at representing the West... how, exactly? How is it any different from the NFL, where the AFC will more than likely produce that team and there's less than four or five teams that have a legitimate shot at that?

That assumes many folks still truly care about what happens in the NBA. I sure don't. That said, the league seems to be going through a generational shift, and the balance of power is changing enough to keep it possibly interesting in the future. That, and at least Dallas, San Antonio, and Phoenix have that whole "Roshambo" thing to keep it interesting.

The MLB has had more different Champions in the last twenty years than any of the other three leagues, yet somehow it has the least amount of parity? The NFL and NBA each have "dynasties" and a short list of teams with a legitimate shot of winning the Super Bowl every year. Sure, a team can surprise some people and make the playoffs, but of the last 20 or so Super Bowl Champions, how many of them came out of nowhere to win it? The Rams and maybe the Ravens?

New England in 2001?

Last 20 years is a bit of a red herring....perhaps the 1994 introduction of a salary cap in the NFL would be better mark. The NFL has an advantage over MLB in that time frame.

Super Bowl Champs are

Indianapolis

Pittsburgh

New England

Tampa Bay

Baltimore

St. Louis

Denver

Green Bay

Dallas

San Francisco

Baseball champs are

Boston

St. Louis

Chicago White Sox

Florida

Anaheim

Arizona

New York Yankees

Atlanta

EDIT-NBA is

San Antonio

Miami

Detroit

Los Angeles

Chicago

Houston

(I would suggest that the nature of basketball....where one or two good players can turn a team into a champion....works against the NBA in getting variety in champions with or without a cap.)

----------------------------------------

Again though....Red Sox fans are haves and shouldn't care about the direction the game is going.

I, on the other hand, am getting ready to buy "London Kings" merchandise (anybody get that reference?)

[STL_Ian]

Baseball revenues and attendance are at all-time highs. As long as they keep going up, and as long as the MLBPA exists, a salary cap is nowhere in sight.

That statement is totally true & I agree. Sad, but true situation.

As for the lack of a "realistic chance of winning a championship"...the 2003 Florida Marlins say hi.

The 2003 Marlins are the exception, but far from the rule. You might make a case for the '05 White Sox & '02 Angels as well since they were towards the middle of the pack in payroll. However, that's only 3 teams in the last 15 years. Teams spending in the upper 1/3 have won it every other time.

To take that a step further, many owners go by the saying "just get in -- from there, it's a crapshoot." So, let's take a look at the four teams who made it to the LCS in both leagues this year. The Red Sox are obviously a juggernaut and finished second in total payroll at about $143 million. I'll give you that. The other three teams, however, weren't quite as expensive. The Indians, Diamondbacks and Rockies ranked 23rd, 25th and 26th in total 2007 payroll, respectively. The Indians were within a game of the World Series, and the Rockies actually made it there. If that's not a realistic chance of winning a title, I don't know what is.

This proves that the National League is a crapshoot, certainly, but I don't believe it proves that either NL team had a chance in hell against an AL team. I guess anything is possible though. Also, I think the argument can be made that their successes were at least in part the products of most of the National League effectively playing under a salary cap (NL only had 3 of the top 10 spenders). Playing in the NL may give the 16 of those teams a realistic chance of making it to the Series, but of winning it, I think not. The Indians too made quite a run on the cheap, but ultimately they became nothing more than another example of a team beaten by the "haves".

It's not about spending the money, you have to spend the money smartly. The Red Sox did that by not budging on what they thought Pedro and Johnny Damon were worth and they let them walk. The Yankees haven't done that in a long time... they paid about $100 million more for A-Rod than any other team was willing to pay... insane. Red Sox have made their fair share of big money mistakes -- Drew and Lugo, so far -- but they've also been pretty good with their cheap alternatives, which more than make up for it.

You are certainly correct in that how the money is spent is a huge factor. Billy Beane is a great example. However, you cannot discount the quantity of money a team has to work with. Espstein or Cashman may be brilliant, but I'm wondering how many championship teams they field given the payroll constraints of a Kansas City or Pittsburgh or Oakland? Maybe one day we'll finally know or maybe we can just check how many Mr. Beane has won.

The NL champion will not win the World Series for the foreseeable future at the rate baseball is going since 2003 (barring a similarly unlikely series of pitching ups that we saw out of Detroit in 2006)....so that argument is a red herring. Similarly...Boston, Los Angeles, New York, Cleveland, and Detroit are the only teams in the AL that have a realistic shot at making your "crapshoot" in the American league. In other words, opening day is 4 months away...and we have already eliminated 5/6ths of the MLB from realistic championship contention. How is that healthy for the sport? Also you can thank bandwagoning Yankee and Red Sox fans for your revenue growth.

Honestly, the only people who should like the status quo are the fans of the 5 "haves". Which you are.

Epiphanic....yeah, that's why we have the same teams in the NFL playoffs annually....

I concur.

At the end of the day, winning a championship isn't the only reason to watch baseball, but as a fan you at least want to be able to dream of it. For most though, that's currently nothing more than a pipe dream.

[See Red]

So the American League being the better league, and the more likely of the two to produce the World Series Champion, and having only five teams from that League that can realistically have a shot at being that team is different from the NBA, where the Western Conference will most likely produce the Champion, and only four or five teams have a legitimate shot at representing the West... how, exactly? How is it any different from the NFL, where the AFC will more than likely produce that team and there's less than four or five teams that have a legitimate shot at that?

That assumes many folks still truly care about what happens in the NBA. I sure don't. That said, the league seems to be going through a generational shift, and the balance of power is changing enough to keep it possibly interesting in the future. That, and at least Dallas, San Antonio, and Phoenix have that whole "Roshambo" thing to keep it interesting.

The MLB has had more different Champions in the last twenty years than any of the other three leagues, yet somehow it has the least amount of parity? The NFL and NBA each have "dynasties" and a short list of teams with a legitimate shot of winning the Super Bowl every year. Sure, a team can surprise some people and make the playoffs, but of the last 20 or so Super Bowl Champions, how many of them came out of nowhere to win it? The Rams and maybe the Ravens?

New England in 2001?

Last 20 years is a bit of a red herring....perhaps the 1994 introduction of a salary cap in the NFL would be better mark. The NFL has an advantage over MLB in that time frame.

Super Bowl Champs are

Indianapolis

Pittsburgh

New England

Tampa Bay

Baltimore

St. Louis

Denver

Green Bay

Dallas

San Francisco

Baseball champs are

Boston

St. Louis

Chicago White Sox

Florida

Anaheim

Arizona

New York Yankees

Atlanta

EDIT-NBA is

San Antonio

Miami

Detroit

Los Angeles

Chicago

Houston

(I would suggest that the nature of basketball....where one or two good players can turn a team into a champion....works against the NBA in getting variety in champions with or without a cap.)

----------------------------------------

Again though....Red Sox fans are haves and shouldn't care about the direction the game is going.

I, on the other hand, am getting ready to buy "London Kings" merchandise (anybody get that reference?)

Heh... I'm so used to New England being good at this point I didn't think about them.

There is no problem with the direction of the game...money's a nice advantage but it's been prove over the last eight or so years that it doesn't = championships. This Red Sox team is probably the first example of it working, and the big free agent pickups this past offseason were terrible all year.

[See Red]

Andruw Jones is a Dodger for 2 years, $36 million

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...7&fext=.jsp

[See Red]

Double post.

[PeytonManningRocks]

Andruw Jones is a Dodger for 2 years, $36 million

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...7&fext=.jsp

While I'm happy that we have him now, I'm not so stoked about having TWO overpaid center fielders. But at least Andruw has defense and power, and he isn't exactly a snail.