|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 12, 2024 11:06:41 GMT -8
I've been following this team for 50 years. Granted, the last 10 years not as closely as 40 years of frustration and a team more often than not built to contend for 3rd place took it's toll on me and I became very disillusioned with the franchise and the league. It's impossible not to be fed up. The Padres are the oldest team to NOT win a World Series, and one of only 5 that hasn't done it. We have more losing seasons than winning seasons in our history by far. And the Dodgers just keep on loading up on more and more elite talent. How are we going to compete next year with an aging/declining Machado and Bogaerts sucking up a ton of salary money? Darvish can't maintain this level for long as he's going to be 39 next season. We won't have Kim. We will have an aging Cronenworth who clearly is past his prime. It's Tatis, a few good pitchers, and that's it. That's not nearly enough to contend. It doesn't matter. You have the same complaint every time. It's boring, predictable and it's false. The Dodgers are going to be better next year? How do you know? They wildly underperformed this year and were on the verge of being eliminated. Variance and randomness won out. It happens in a truncated series. The Padres were a better team late in the season. You need to detach yourself, like I've said numerous times. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 12, 2024 11:10:36 GMT -8
I've been following this team for 50 years. Granted, the last 10 years not as closely as 40 years of frustration and a team more often than not built to contend for 3rd place took it's toll on me and I became very disillusioned with the franchise and the league. It's impossible not to be fed up. The Padres are the oldest team to NOT win a World Series, and one of only 5 that hasn't done it. We have more losing seasons than winning seasons in our history by far. And the Dodgers just keep on loading up on more and more elite talent. How are we going to compete next year with an aging/declining Machado and Bogaerts sucking up a ton of salary money? Darvish can't maintain this level for long as he's going to be 39 next season. We won't have Kim. We will have an aging Cronenworth who clearly is past his prime. It's Tatis, a few good pitchers, and that's it. That's not nearly enough to contend. It doesn't matter. You have the same complaint every time. It's boring, predictable and it's false. The Dodgers are going to be better next year? How do you know? They wildly underperformed this year and were on the verge of being eliminated. Variance and randomness won out. It happens in a truncated series. The Padres were a better team late in the season. You need to detach yourself, like I've said numerous times. Have I been wrong? I've been saying for years that the Padres weren't going to win a World Series, and they haven't. Hell, they haven't even gotten to the World Series in 28 years. Over a quarter century. Until they win one, I will continue to be right. Sometimes I hate being right and want to be wrong. This is one of those times. This year I let myself get excited and bought in to the team, and look how that worked out - 24 straight scoreless innings. |
|
|
|
Post by junior on Oct 12, 2024 11:11:22 GMT -8
History = Statistics.
And the Padres' history is well known. So is the doyers'.
The statistics are all right there, no need to nit pick, cherry pick or argue about the comparisons.
50 years is a relatively large N.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 12, 2024 12:24:59 GMT -8
It doesn't matter. You have the same complaint every time. It's boring, predictable and it's false. The Dodgers are going to be better next year? How do you know? They wildly underperformed this year and were on the verge of being eliminated. Variance and randomness won out. It happens in a truncated series. The Padres were a better team late in the season. You need to detach yourself, like I've said numerous times. Have I been wrong? I've been saying for years that the Padres weren't going to win a World Series, and they haven't. Hell, they haven't even gotten to the World Series in 28 years. Over a quarter century. Until they win one, I will continue to be right. Sometimes I hate being right and want to be wrong. This is one of those times. This year I let myself get excited and bought in to the team, and look how that worked out - 24 straight scoreless innings. Your complaint isn't wrong, how you get there is the problem. It's hard to win a World Series. Very hard. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 12, 2024 12:28:52 GMT -8
Have I been wrong? I've been saying for years that the Padres weren't going to win a World Series, and they haven't. Hell, they haven't even gotten to the World Series in 28 years. Over a quarter century. Until they win one, I will continue to be right. Sometimes I hate being right and want to be wrong. This is one of those times. This year I let myself get excited and bought in to the team, and look how that worked out - 24 straight scoreless innings. Your complaint isn't wrong, how you get there is the problem. It's hard to win a World Series. Very hard. And yet the Padres are the oldest team to NOT win a World Series. One of only FIVE teams that haven't won one. All five being small or mid market teams. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 12, 2024 14:11:36 GMT -8
Your complaint isn't wrong, how you get there is the problem. It's hard to win a World Series. Very hard. And yet the Padres are the oldest team to NOT win a World Series. One of only FIVE teams that haven't won one. All five being small or mid market teams. Money doesn't win championships. This theory falls apart quickly when you actually look at the teams that have won championships. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 12, 2024 15:12:21 GMT -8
And yet the Padres are the oldest team to NOT win a World Series. One of only FIVE teams that haven't won one. All five being small or mid market teams. Money doesn't win championships. This theory falls apart quickly when you actually look at the teams that have won championships. Money keeps teams in winning records. The Dodgers have 3 losing seasons in the last 30 years. The same is true for the Yankees. Money erases mistakes, and makes you a contender. A lack of money creates losing teams that don't have the talent to compete. It's what the league wants. They want the major markets in the playoffs every year for ratings/viewers. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 12, 2024 15:38:34 GMT -8
Money doesn't win championships. This theory falls apart quickly when you actually look at the teams that have won championships. Money keeps teams in winning records. The Dodgers have 3 losing seasons in the last 30 years. The same is true for the Yankees. Money erases mistakes, and makes you a contender. A lack of money creates losing teams that don't have the talent to compete. It's what the league wants. They want the major markets in the playoffs every year for ratings/viewers. Money doesn't make you a contender, smart utilization of that money does. There's no conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Post by junior on Oct 12, 2024 16:18:52 GMT -8
A lack of money creates losing teams that don't have the talent to compete. It's what the league wants. They want the major markets in the playoffs every year for ratings/viewers. They'll take NY vs LA any day of the week. How many were lining up to watch SD vs CLE? (if that had happened…) |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 12, 2024 17:43:22 GMT -8
A lack of money creates losing teams that don't have the talent to compete. It's what the league wants. They want the major markets in the playoffs every year for ratings/viewers. They'll take NY vs LA any day of the week. How many were lining up to watch SD vs CLE? (if that had happened…) Exactly. The league doesn't want the Padres or the Brewers or the Royals to become championship level teams. It means lower ratings/viewership, and that's all the league bosses care about. So if the league has an unfair system that props up those big market teams, that's fine with them. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 12, 2024 17:48:23 GMT -8
Money keeps teams in winning records. The Dodgers have 3 losing seasons in the last 30 years. The same is true for the Yankees. Money erases mistakes, and makes you a contender. A lack of money creates losing teams that don't have the talent to compete. It's what the league wants. They want the major markets in the playoffs every year for ratings/viewers. Money doesn't make you a contender, smart utilization of that money does. There's no conspiracy. You're right, they have to be smart with that money. But what that means is if the GM makes a mistake it's easily fixed with a trade that season, or with a FA acquisition the following offseason. They don't have to be perfect. Small market teams do. And since no one is perfect, small market teams pay for their mistakes for 3 or 4 years of bad baseball before the team has a chance to be competitive again. Mid market teams pay the price for 2-3 years. Big market teams? No price to pay at all half the time, and the other half it's just a one year price. I'd much rather be the GM for a major market team. I can hire better coaches and managers. I can sign whatever players I want. I can fix mistakes relatively easily. The sad thing is the major market teams usually get the best GM's because they can pay them more, so that gives them yet another advantage. Sure, big market teams can screw up and fall back to earth, but they can also rise the following year. Look at the number of losing seasons big market teams have. It is extremely rare. Small/mid market teams have 5 or 6 times as many losing seasons as big market teams. Money is a major component of success. Not the only one (duh), but a major one. If there were a salary cap at $200 Million the Dodgers might not even be a playoff team this year. |
|
|
|
Post by junior on Oct 12, 2024 18:08:15 GMT -8
The Padres margin for error is far narrower than it is for L.A. It always has been, likely always will be. Even with a deep pocket ownership group - or someone like a Ray Kroc - the money coming in from all areas related to the team's income will be far more in a large market than a smaller one. More jerseys sold, more tickets at higher prices, more concessions, and on and on. And it always feels like it's the money available - and in this day and age the number/quality of media resources - that creates the uneven playing fields that these teams play on. The Padres have gained in these areas over the decades, but then, so have all the big market teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 12, 2024 18:34:29 GMT -8
Money doesn't make you a contender, smart utilization of that money does. There's no conspiracy. You're right, they have to be smart with that money. But what that means is if the GM makes a mistake it's easily fixed with a trade that season, or with a FA acquisition the following offseason. They don't have to be perfect. Small market teams do. And since no one is perfect, small market teams pay for their mistakes for 3 or 4 years of bad baseball before the team has a chance to be competitive again. Mid market teams pay the price for 2-3 years. Big market teams? No price to pay at all half the time, and the other half it's just a one year price. I'd much rather be the GM for a major market team. I can hire better coaches and managers. I can sign whatever players I want. I can fix mistakes relatively easily. The sad thing is the major market teams usually get the best GM's because they can pay them more, so that gives them yet another advantage. Sure, big market teams can screw up and fall back to earth, but they can also rise the following year. Look at the number of losing seasons big market teams have. It is extremely rare. Small/mid market teams have 5 or 6 times as many losing seasons as big market teams. Money is a major component of success. Not the only one (duh), but a major one. If there were a salary cap at $200 Million the Dodgers might not even be a playoff team this year. Again, this is just nonsense. There will never be a salary cap in baseball, you can't have a cap without a floor. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 12, 2024 19:08:53 GMT -8
The Padres margin for error is far narrower than it is for L.A. It always has been, likely always will be. Even with a deep pocket ownership group - or someone like a Ray Kroc - the money coming in from all areas related to the team's income will be far more in a large market than a smaller one. More jerseys sold, more tickets at higher prices, more concessions, and on and on. And it always feels like it's the money available - and in this day and age the number/quality of media resources - that creates the uneven playing fields that these teams play on. The Padres have gained in these areas over the decades, but then, so have all the big market teams. Yes, and the big advantage for the bigger market teams is they always have a legitimate opportunity to get into the playoffs. They can fix a mistake signing, or an injury, by just writing a check. Having said that, that obviously doesn't ensure that they'll get into the playoffs, but it sure helps to have that open checkbook. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 12, 2024 19:18:23 GMT -8
The Padres margin for error is far narrower than it is for L.A. It always has been, likely always will be. Even with a deep pocket ownership group - or someone like a Ray Kroc - the money coming in from all areas related to the team's income will be far more in a large market than a smaller one. More jerseys sold, more tickets at higher prices, more concessions, and on and on. And it always feels like it's the money available - and in this day and age the number/quality of media resources - that creates the uneven playing fields that these teams play on. The Padres have gained in these areas over the decades, but then, so have all the big market teams. Yes, and the big advantage for the bigger market teams is they always have a legitimate opportunity to get into the playoffs. They can fix a mistake signing, or an injury, by just writing a check. Having said that, that obviously doesn't ensure that they'll get into the playoffs, but it sure helps to have that open checkbook. It's also just not universally true... at all. Steve Cohen. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 12, 2024 21:21:57 GMT -8
You're right, they have to be smart with that money. But what that means is if the GM makes a mistake it's easily fixed with a trade that season, or with a FA acquisition the following offseason. They don't have to be perfect. Small market teams do. And since no one is perfect, small market teams pay for their mistakes for 3 or 4 years of bad baseball before the team has a chance to be competitive again. Mid market teams pay the price for 2-3 years. Big market teams? No price to pay at all half the time, and the other half it's just a one year price. I'd much rather be the GM for a major market team. I can hire better coaches and managers. I can sign whatever players I want. I can fix mistakes relatively easily. The sad thing is the major market teams usually get the best GM's because they can pay them more, so that gives them yet another advantage. Sure, big market teams can screw up and fall back to earth, but they can also rise the following year. Look at the number of losing seasons big market teams have. It is extremely rare. Small/mid market teams have 5 or 6 times as many losing seasons as big market teams. Money is a major component of success. Not the only one (duh), but a major one. If there were a salary cap at $200 Million the Dodgers might not even be a playoff team this year. Again, this is just nonsense. There will never be a salary cap in baseball, you can't have a cap without a floor. Sure you can. Look at the NFL. Salary cap, no salary floor. And the NFL is the most competitive league in the country. Success isn't based on geography and population, it's based on good management (good coaching and good talent all falls under good management - picking the right people to work for you). Imagine if there were a $200 Million salary cap in baseball. The Dodgers wouldn't have gotten Ohtani, and they might not have made the playoffs. The talent pool in the league would be spread out more evenly. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Oct 12, 2024 21:33:34 GMT -8
Again, this is just nonsense. There will never be a salary cap in baseball, you can't have a cap without a floor. Sure you can. Look at the NFL. Salary cap, no salary floor. And the NFL is the most competitive league in the country. Success isn't based on geography and population, it's based on good management (good coaching and good talent all falls under good management - picking the right people to work for you). Imagine if there were a $200 Million salary cap in baseball. The Dodgers wouldn't have gotten Ohtani, and they might not have made the playoffs. The talent pool in the league would be spread out more evenly. Ah---but there IS a salary floor, and a little research would have told you that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 12, 2024 21:54:02 GMT -8
Sure you can. Look at the NFL. Salary cap, no salary floor. And the NFL is the most competitive league in the country. Success isn't based on geography and population, it's based on good management (good coaching and good talent all falls under good management - picking the right people to work for you). Imagine if there were a $200 Million salary cap in baseball. The Dodgers wouldn't have gotten Ohtani, and they might not have made the playoffs. The talent pool in the league would be spread out more evenly. Ah---but there IS a salary floor, and a little research would have told you that. And I did the research. The salary floor is somewhat flexible, and you never, ever hear about a team not spending enough to hit those numbers. Revenue sharing and a reasonable salary cap makes it work. And if you have greater revenue sharing in MLB and institute a salary cap it won't be hard to include the floor as part of that deal. Going on about a salary floor is a non-issue. It would be part of the same deal to make the cap palatable to the players union. As it stands now there are several teams who have losing records far more often than they have winning records, and NONE of them are in major markets. ALL of them are in small or smaller mid markets. They can't keep their own best players when they develop them, and they can't replace those players they lose with equivalent talent because the equivalent talent can get paid a lot more in the major markets. It's a crappy system, and those that defend it are just myopic. The system does not work. It is broken. The system as it stands now leaves about 10 teams in the position of only contending 1 or 2 years out of every 10. That's not right. Their fanbases are tiny because people get tired of watching their teams lose and have no chance at making the playoffs year in and year out. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 12, 2024 22:04:27 GMT -8
Ah---but there IS a salary floor, and a little research would have told you that. And I did the research. The salary floor is somewhat flexible, and you never, ever hear about a team not spending enough to hit those numbers. Revenue sharing and a reasonable salary cap makes it work. And if you have greater revenue sharing in MLB and institute a salary cap it won't be hard to include the floor as part of that deal. Going on about a salary floor is a non-issue. It would be part of the same deal to make the cap palatable to the players union. As it stands now there are several teams who have losing records far more often than they have winning records, and NONE of them are in major markets. ALL of them are in small or smaller mid markets. They can't keep their own best players when they develop them, and they can't replace those players they lose with equivalent talent because the equivalent talent can get paid a lot more in the major markets. It's a crappy system, and those that defend it are just myopic. The system does not work. It is broken. The system as it stands now leaves about 10 teams in the position of only contending 1 or 2 years out of every 10. That's not right. Their fanbases are tiny because people get tired of watching their teams lose and have no chance at making the playoffs year in and year out. Uh, what? You never hear about it? Oakland? Pittsburgh? Cincinnati? Detroit? Just to name a few. Detroit's entire playoff roster of 26 guys totaled just over $18M. There's no real floor and no mechanism to punish teams that are reaping in record revenues yearly and refusing to spend. The White Sox are LOWERING payroll in 2025. The White Sox. You need to reread Ohtani's contract, by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 12, 2024 22:06:07 GMT -8
And I did the research. The salary floor is somewhat flexible, and you never, ever hear about a team not spending enough to hit those numbers. Revenue sharing and a reasonable salary cap makes it work. And if you have greater revenue sharing in MLB and institute a salary cap it won't be hard to include the floor as part of that deal. Going on about a salary floor is a non-issue. It would be part of the same deal to make the cap palatable to the players union. As it stands now there are several teams who have losing records far more often than they have winning records, and NONE of them are in major markets. ALL of them are in small or smaller mid markets. They can't keep their own best players when they develop them, and they can't replace those players they lose with equivalent talent because the equivalent talent can get paid a lot more in the major markets. It's a crappy system, and those that defend it are just myopic. The system does not work. It is broken. The system as it stands now leaves about 10 teams in the position of only contending 1 or 2 years out of every 10. That's not right. Their fanbases are tiny because people get tired of watching their teams lose and have no chance at making the playoffs year in and year out. Uh, what? You never hear about it? Oakland? Pittsburgh? Cincinnati? Detroit? Just to name a few. Detroit's entire playoff roster of 26 guys totaled less just over $18M. There's no real floor and no mechanism to punish teams that are reaping in record revenues yearly. I'm talking NFL. The salary floor isn't really needed in the NFL because of revenue sharing. The GM's will spend money to be competitive so they don't get fired! But the league has a floor that no one violates because they have the money to spend and no one wants to get fired for losing. |
|
