|
Post by The Aztec Panther on May 5, 2018 16:08:38 GMT -8
The same as I would Kansas City's. It's a temporary blip that lasts 2-3 years. Any small/mid market team can stumble onto a great line-up. ALL of them should, eventually. My whole contention is that for fans of teams like the Royals, Padres, Brewers, etc, they have to sit through 6, 7, even 8 or more years of GARBAGE baseball to finally get to a couple good seasons before the league setup hits the reset button and they suck for another 6,7,8 years. The major market, big money teams don't have to go through 6-8 years of horrible baseball to finally get a contender. They have winning records almost every year. They're legit contenders half the time. So, yeah, Houston's having their moment now. But it won't last more than a couple more years before they crash back to earth. Look at Kansas City. Look at Tampa Bay (the Rays are one of those teams that people pointed to as a small market team that had consistent success, but it didn't really last in the same way that the Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox success has lasted). The small/mid market teams that achieve success only do so for a relatively short time. Houston is a top 10 media market, and 11th in payroll. Using your own argument, they should continue to be successful. Unless you want to change your argument. If their market is that big - and the media has painted them as a mid to small market team - then their success is overdue. Now at the 10th largest market size they've got 9 teams ahead of them, so their success should be proportional. Maybe they can sustain it, then. They've got the money, apparently (unlike how the sports media has presented their situation). KC doesn't, and they collapsed. Tampa Bay doesn't, and they came back to earth. Teams that are below average in market size and revenue will not be able to maintain success like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers do. I keep going back to the NFL. If success in the NFL was based on revenues, then Dallas would be what New England has been for the last 20 years, but they haven't been. They haven't been to a Super Bowl in almost a quarter century! Why? Bad management. Period, exclamation point. Just like the New York Mets and Chicago White Sox have struggled - because of bad management, not a lack of money for payroll. On the other hand, the Royals, Brewers, Padres, etc, have sucked in large part because they don't have the money to re-sign their own best players. When teams like the Padres stumble on to someone good they cannot keep him, so it's a constant game of trying to replace almost everyone good on the roster every couple of years. Even with the best management that's a difficult proposition, and the Padres cannot afford the best management. The MLB system sucks, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. (Unless he's a Yankees or Red Sox fan...)
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 5, 2018 17:16:31 GMT -8
Houston is a top 10 media market, and 11th in payroll. Using your own argument, they should continue to be successful. Unless you want to change your argument. If their market is that big - and the media has painted them as a mid to small market team - then their success is overdue. Now at the 10th largest market size they've got 9 teams ahead of them, so their success should be proportional. Maybe they can sustain it, then. They've got the money, apparently (unlike how the sports media has presented their situation). KC doesn't, and they collapsed. Tampa Bay doesn't, and they came back to earth. Teams that are below average in market size and revenue will not be able to maintain success like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers do. I keep going back to the NFL. If success in the NFL was based on revenues, then Dallas would be what New England has been for the last 20 years, but they haven't been. They haven't been to a Super Bowl in almost a quarter century! Why? Bad management. Period, exclamation point. Just like the New York Mets and Chicago White Sox have struggled - because of bad management, not a lack of money for payroll. On the other hand, the Royals, Brewers, Padres, etc, have sucked in large part because they don't have the money to re-sign their own best players. When teams like the Padres stumble on to someone good they cannot keep him, so it's a constant game of trying to replace almost everyone good on the roster every couple of years. Even with the best management that's a difficult proposition, and the Padres cannot afford the best management. The MLB system sucks, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. (Unless he's a Yankees or Red Sox fan...) Well, the system is not changing, but you can continue complaining about something you don't care about anymore.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on May 5, 2018 18:14:13 GMT -8
Well, the system is not changing, but you can continue complaining about something you don't care about anymore. So are you OK with the system setting up some teams to be winners almost every year while at the same time setting up some teams to lose almost every year, or would you prefer to see it change?
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 5, 2018 19:12:15 GMT -8
Well, the system is not changing, but you can continue complaining about something you don't care about anymore. So are you OK with the system setting up some teams to be winners almost every year while at the same time setting up some teams to lose almost every year, or would you prefer to see it change? Apparently, MLB is, including many mid and small market teams.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 5, 2018 19:15:32 GMT -8
K-o-meter...347 K's in 34 games. Still at 10.2 K's/game.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on May 5, 2018 21:42:58 GMT -8
So are you OK with the system setting up some teams to be winners almost every year while at the same time setting up some teams to lose almost every year, or would you prefer to see it change? Apparently, MLB is, including many mid and small market teams. Apparently MLB is what? Making changes? OK, ever so slowly, but the small/mid market teams still cannot sustain success the way the big market teams can. Unless the fans indicate that they aren't happy with the current system the league has NO reason to make any changes that would improve parity.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 6, 2018 7:12:20 GMT -8
Apparently, MLB is, including many mid and small market teams. Apparently MLB is what? Making changes? OK, ever so slowly, but the small/mid market teams still cannot sustain success the way the big market teams can. Unless the fans indicate that they aren't happy with the current system the league has NO reason to make any changes that would improve parity. Apparently MLB is OK with the current system, including many mid and small market teams. Comprende?
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on May 6, 2018 8:39:36 GMT -8
Apparently MLB is what? Making changes? OK, ever so slowly, but the small/mid market teams still cannot sustain success the way the big market teams can. Unless the fans indicate that they aren't happy with the current system the league has NO reason to make any changes that would improve parity. Apparently MLB is OK with the current system, including many mid and small market teams. Comprende? They're OK with it because they're making money. MLB owners and league officials don't really care about competition on the field as much as they care about dollars in their bank accounts. And the big market teams can, essentially, veto anything that would cut into their competitive advantage. The players side with the big money teams because it gives THEM bigger paychecks. So the league sucks as a result. Bad teams stay bad for years, good teams are almost never bad, and idiot fans who are OK with the system as is attack anyone who points out the inherent imbalance in the league.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 6, 2018 9:52:54 GMT -8
Apparently MLB is OK with the current system, including many mid and small market teams. Comprende? They're OK with it because they're making money. MLB owners and league officials don't really care about competition on the field as much as they care about dollars in their bank accounts. And the big market teams can, essentially, veto anything that would cut into their competitive advantage. The players side with the big money teams because it gives THEM bigger paychecks. So the league sucks as a result. Bad teams stay bad for years, good teams are almost never bad, and idiot fans who are OK with the system as is attack anyone who points out the inherent imbalance in the league. So in your eyes, I'm an idiot and a moron. Got it. And it's still hilarious to me that you are on your soapbox over something you don't care about anymore.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on May 6, 2018 15:58:04 GMT -8
They're OK with it because they're making money. MLB owners and league officials don't really care about competition on the field as much as they care about dollars in their bank accounts. And the big market teams can, essentially, veto anything that would cut into their competitive advantage. The players side with the big money teams because it gives THEM bigger paychecks. So the league sucks as a result. Bad teams stay bad for years, good teams are almost never bad, and idiot fans who are OK with the system as is attack anyone who points out the inherent imbalance in the league. So in your eyes, I'm an idiot and a moron. Got it. And it's still hilarious to me that you are on your soapbox over something you don't care about anymore. If you are arguing against common sense and the basic principles of economics? Look, as I noted before, I HATE MLB, but I love baseball. The league is broken. It's corrupt, almost to the point where you could say it's fixed. There are a handful of teams that have a built in advantage each and every year and get what amounts to a month's worth of a head start on the pennant race thanks to the system allowing them to buy not only the best talent, but they can also buy the best depth, coaches, and managers, too. And I would only say someone's an idiot if they support the system as is and don't want it reformed. Unless they're a fan of the Red Sox, Yankees, or Dodgers, in which case they really want to keep the system as is. Why are you arguing against reform? Why do you defend a broken, corrupt system? That's what I'd really like to know.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 6, 2018 16:25:36 GMT -8
So in your eyes, I'm an idiot and a moron. Got it. And it's still hilarious to me that you are on your soapbox over something you don't care about anymore. If you are arguing against common sense and the basic principles of economics? Look, as I noted before, I HATE MLB, but I love baseball. The league is broken. It's corrupt, almost to the point where you could say it's fixed. There are a handful of teams that have a built in advantage each and every year and get what amounts to a month's worth of a head start on the pennant race thanks to the system allowing them to buy not only the best talent, but they can also buy the best depth, coaches, and managers, too. And I would only say someone's an idiot if they support the system as is and don't want it reformed. Unless they're a fan of the Red Sox, Yankees, or Dodgers, in which case they really want to keep the system as is. Why are you arguing against reform? Why do you defend a broken, corrupt system? That's what I'd really like to know. It would appear you say someone's an idiot (or moron on another thread) should they disagree with you. It's cool--it's your website. And I'm not arguing against reform--I am simply pointing out that MLB is in no hurry to do it.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on May 6, 2018 17:33:59 GMT -8
If you are arguing against common sense and the basic principles of economics? Look, as I noted before, I HATE MLB, but I love baseball. The league is broken. It's corrupt, almost to the point where you could say it's fixed. There are a handful of teams that have a built in advantage each and every year and get what amounts to a month's worth of a head start on the pennant race thanks to the system allowing them to buy not only the best talent, but they can also buy the best depth, coaches, and managers, too. And I would only say someone's an idiot if they support the system as is and don't want it reformed. Unless they're a fan of the Red Sox, Yankees, or Dodgers, in which case they really want to keep the system as is. Why are you arguing against reform? Why do you defend a broken, corrupt system? That's what I'd really like to know. It would appear you say someone's an idiot (or moron on another thread) should they disagree with you. It's cool--it's your website. And I'm not arguing against reform--I am simply pointing out that MLB is in no hurry to do it. But you seem to be arguing that criticizing the system is wrong or just flat out stupid. And you refuse to take a stance on the system as it stands now.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 6, 2018 18:42:34 GMT -8
It would appear you say someone's an idiot (or moron on another thread) should they disagree with you. It's cool--it's your website. And I'm not arguing against reform--I am simply pointing out that MLB is in no hurry to do it. But you seem to be arguing that criticizing the system is wrong or just flat out stupid. And you refuse to take a stance on the system as it stands now. I dont need to take a stance until MLB decides they want to change a system they apparently don't think is broken. But if they do decide to change something, you'll be the first I let know what I think about any changes.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on May 6, 2018 18:55:19 GMT -8
Jesus. Talk about a thread hijack by dead horse beating....or at this point, murder. Useless argument. I guess the Indians (16th in payroll) Atlanta (21st in payroll) and Arizona (18th in payroll) should just forfeit their division lead and go home so the big market teams can win by default.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on May 6, 2018 19:09:09 GMT -8
Jesus. Talk about a thread hijack by dead horse beating....or at this point, murder. Useless argument. I guess the Indians (16th in payroll) Atlanta (21st in payroll) and Arizona (18th in payroll) should just forfeit their division lead and go home so the big market teams can win by default. Any team can, and every team should, hit on a winning combination sooner or later. But the small/mid market teams cannot sustain success like the big market teams can. That's all I'm saying. And it's a fact. Look at Kansas City. Look at Tampa Bay. The small/mid market teams that have success now will be losers again in 2-3 years for a 5-8 year stretch while the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc, will have winning records 9 out of every 10 years. I don't understand how anyone think's that's OK. I'd end that aspect of the discussion right here if people would stop arguing against the idea that there is a systematic competitive imbalance in the league.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 6, 2018 19:11:07 GMT -8
Jesus. Talk about a thread hijack by dead horse beating....or at this point, murder. Useless argument. I guess the Indians (16th in payroll) Atlanta (21st in payroll) and Arizona (18th in payroll) should just forfeit their division lead and go home so the big market teams can win by default. And the Padres only had 8 K's today.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on May 6, 2018 20:20:02 GMT -8
Jesus. Talk about a thread hijack by dead horse beating....or at this point, murder. Useless argument. I guess the Indians (16th in payroll) Atlanta (21st in payroll) and Arizona (18th in payroll) should just forfeit their division lead and go home so the big market teams can win by default. Any team can, and every team should, hit on a winning combination sooner or later. But the small/mid market teams cannot sustain success like the big market teams can. That's all I'm saying. And it's a fact. Look at Kansas City. Look at Tampa Bay. The small/mid market teams that have success now will be losers again in 2-3 years for a 5-8 year stretch while the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc, will have winning records 9 out of every 10 years. I don't understand how anyone think's that's OK. I'd end that aspect of the discussion right here if people would stop arguing against the idea that there is a systematic competitive imbalance in the league. It's not changing, so give it a rest. Kansas City was an outlier as all of their core pieces achieved free agency at basically the same time. That's not exactly smart from a player personnel perspective. Tampa has always, always been frugal with their money. They don't put fans in seats and have never had a payroll that would be considered remotely competitive, regardless of who is in their division. The Padres have enough money to be competitive now. The problem is they have to develop players, something they have struggled to do for 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on May 8, 2018 23:42:25 GMT -8
This year we have seen the emergence of Villanueva and Cordero, but the rest of the younger Padre hitters have clearly regressed.
Hedges .173 Spangenberg .196 Renfroe. .200 Margot. .185 Asiaje .194
These were guys who the Padres were counting on to hit at least a little bit. Too many big swings from non power hitters.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on May 9, 2018 15:30:53 GMT -8
Margot will be fine. The injury I think really disrupted his timing at the plate and I think he's a byproduct of trying to do too much. The others concern me, although Spangenberg and Asauje were never seen as real long term fixes to the puzzle for contention.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 9, 2018 21:21:53 GMT -8
K-o-meter...380 K's in 38 games, or exactly 10 K's per game.
|
|