Major League Baseball: 2011 Thread

Discussion in 'Sports' started by JohnBM01, Feb 14, 2011.

  1. CMvan46

    CMvan46

    Messages:
    2,547
    Location:
    Canada
    Well the Marcum trade has almost already paid off as much as I hate to admit. Lawrie was unreal the end of last season... Can't stand him though, incredibly cocky and arrogant. I used to play with and against him (same hometown) and he hasn't changed since he was 10 years old...

    I don't think the Jays are a bad team at all but when every year you have to compete with two teams spending more than $200 million in payroll alone plus the Rays who seem to develop young players very well and your left with a lot of 4th place division finishes. Even if they get lucky one year and somebody is God awful they still finish 3rd.

    I'll probably get shot for this but I think if any sport could ever use a salary cap baseball would be it. The rich teams can still use their wealth in other ways like in scouting, player development, coaching, and team facilities but atleast lower budget teams stand some sort of chance.
     
  2. Prosthetic

    Prosthetic

    Messages:
    3,542
    Location:
    United States
    Never knew that about Lawrie, but I looked him up and can see the cockiness just looking at him haha. Thank god we don't have anyone like that on the Giants though in the last two years if we did Burrell would of probably steamrolled them haha.

    The Jays aren't a small market team by any means, Toronto is a huge city. Yankees do have lots of money but their minor league system blows and has blown for a long time. There 'top prospect' has been sitting there at the #1 spot for 3 years. For how long they haven't developed someone it seems a bit odd, and its not like hes blocked because every Yankee catcher has sucked for the last few years.
     
  3. CMvan46

    CMvan46

    Messages:
    2,547
    Location:
    Canada
    Oh I agree they aren't small market but they aren't mega market either. Thank god they finally have a decent GM who is making some smart moves. The problem is ownership could never come up with the $200 million Boston and New York are spending and it's not easy convincing guys to come play on the only team north of the border even if they had a the money. I am still shocked they unloaded Wells' contract, awful signing that was.
     
  4. Barra333

    Barra333 Premium

    Messages:
    5,097
    Location:
    Canada
    I think that Rogers could pay $200m/yr (for a few years at least), but dont want to, which is fine by me, because I hate it when teams try to buy a championship (see where it got Leeds FC in the Premier League/Champions league in the late 90's).
    I really like the way that Anthopolous is going about his business, spending money only when he thinks it is worth it, not just throwing it around.
    Also just read that Frasor is going back to Toronto. I really hope that they can at least be in the mix in the last week of the season this year.
     
  5. Villain

    Villain Premium

    Messages:
    4,687
    Location:
    United States
    Toronto qualifies as a small market.
     
  6. Barra333

    Barra333 Premium

    Messages:
    5,097
    Location:
    Canada
    Slightly noob question: How is that determined? Is it crowd size, revenue, fan base, area population, something else or all of the above?
     
  7. CMvan46

    CMvan46

    Messages:
    2,547
    Location:
    Canada
    They could pay it.... And lose money. Rogers is worth billions but they aren't owning the team to win championships they own it to make money, which they are currently doing.

    I wouldn't say they are really small market. They are Canada's only team and therefore sell merchandise right across the country. They have pretty decent attendance and a pretty huge stadium. The thing they lack in is sponsorship dollars since baseball comes after the NHL, CFL, and NFL in this country.

    I wouldn't group them with a lot of the other so called small market teams but they definitely aren't far off.
     
  8. Prosthetic

    Prosthetic

    Messages:
    3,542
    Location:
    United States
    I don't know where this Toronto and small market idea is coming from considering that they do have a pretty big fan base. Lack of success since the early 90's doesn't help. Its slowly gone down but it doesn't take much to wake em. They started off hot in 10' and were drawing pretty good, and they have the stadium to do it in. Most teams could do 200 million IMO, but a lot of owners think of baseball as a major investment thus expecting huge sacks of cash to fall into there hands and not back into the team. The A's, Pirates, Padres, Marlins have been doing this for years.

    Then you have teams on the other end of the spectrum that spend to win... I'll exclude Yankees and Red Sox because they have such monstrous media deals because they've been the darling of ESPN for the last decade. But the Phillies have been spending there way into debt to win again. (Howard and Lee deals are going to backfire big time) Cubs, Astros, Rangers, Angels, Dodgers have all spent to win big time. Small and big market is really a lame term, because any team could be a major market if handled correctly. It has little to do with attendance. That's why I'm so pissed at the Giants front office for saying "Giants need to continue to draw 3.3 million a year to operate at the current $130 million dollar payroll." Considering there current media deals and the ridiculous promotions they continue to sell. Every player pretty much pays for himself, Timmy, Pablo and Wilson all bring in twice what they make easily. They already have Belt as a big sell too.. and he has yet to play consistently :lol:



    Everyone judges it on the payroll which is a huge mistake. It should be judged by there media deals and local population.
     
  9. CMvan46

    CMvan46

    Messages:
    2,547
    Location:
    Canada
    I agree with enough success and proper management that nearly any team could be a bigger market franchise but it just doesn't work like that up here.

    Even if they were highly competitive and in the playoffs nearly every year the big money sponsorship and media deals just aren't there.

    The company that has the television rights to the team also owns it, the name on their stadium is also the same company that owns it, and the radio stations airing the game right across the country...they own them too. They do get decent attendance and have pretty good merchandise sales but they make no other money than that. It's basically how much money does Rogers want to spend on marketing because whatever they put into the team is essentially money they are spending on advertising. They make money off commercials om their networks during the games but Baseball doesn't get fantastic ratings in Canada so that isn't all that lucrative.

    There is also the issue that baseball simply isn't a major sport up here. Even if Rogers didn't own everything I still don't think they'd bring in a lot of money in media deals.
     
  10. Prosthetic

    Prosthetic

    Messages:
    3,542
    Location:
    United States
    Its because they only way to get any of that is success over a period of time. The Jays used to be a huge market team, they used to buy up players. They had some great teams up until the early 90's. They've been pretty meh since then.

    Same thing with the A's... They started sucking, stopped putting money into the stadium years ago so the place is even more of a **** hole and isn't drawing. Put money into it, they will come. Phillies are a testament to this. Once one of the more pathetic organizations in the history of the game (most losing team in history) they considered "big market" although the debt will catch up to them in the same it has with the Dodgers. Maybe a bit less dramatic though.
     
  11. R1600Turbo

    R1600Turbo Premium

    Messages:
    49,965
    Location:
    United States
  12. Villain

    Villain Premium

    Messages:
    4,687
    Location:
    United States
    Basically, yes. It refers to "market share." While the Jays are Canada's only team, they aren't even the biggest team in their own city. A quick trip around wikipedia will demonstate that they don't even have close to as much capital pull as their division counterparts in Boston and New York. Los Angeles, Chicago, and now Texas come to mind as big market towns. There's a ton of cash flow and large fanbases.

    San Francisco should count as one but they play small market. Maybe Prosthetic will be able to explain their tight wallet.
     
  13. Prosthetic

    Prosthetic

    Messages:
    3,542
    Location:
    United States
    Lots of owners = lots of wallets to fill. Nothing like billionaires that don't care about winning but want more money.

    But not only that, the Giants own pretty much the entire Bay Area sports media. So any writer or radio hosts that say anything negative, they get mysteriously fired.
     
  14. Villain

    Villain Premium

    Messages:
    4,687
    Location:
    United States
    How lame is that?
     
  15. Omnis

    Omnis Staff Emeritus

    Messages:
    37,936
    Location:
    United States
    So... The Marlins signed an Elephant. Prince Fielder wasn't big enough.
     
  16. Prosthetic

    Prosthetic

    Messages:
    3,542
    Location:
    United States
    Marlins are going to have an interesting clubhouse this year. But they do have the manager to deal with it.

    In other news, Jorge Posada seems to be on the verge of announcing retirement. We won't have to hear anymore whining about not hitting in the 9 spot again at least :p.
     
  17. Blitz24

    Blitz24 Premium

    Messages:
    14,474
    Location:
    United States
    And now it will just be until 2018 before we hear his name again.
     
  18. Prosthetic

    Prosthetic

    Messages:
    3,542
    Location:
    United States
    He isn't close to good enough for the HoF.
     
  19. Blitz24

    Blitz24 Premium

    Messages:
    14,474
    Location:
    United States
    He'll still receive votes. For one year.
     
  20. Prosthetic

    Prosthetic

    Messages:
    3,542
    Location:
    United States
    He'll get a couple votes just like any player has gotten. The other thing is also... He may get more consideration if we weren't in some of the most talented eras of all time. Next year alone there are a dozen deserving players to make it into the HoF.
     
  21. Blitz24

    Blitz24 Premium

    Messages:
    14,474
    Location:
    United States
    Who is up for consideration in 2013?
     
  22. Barra333

    Barra333 Premium

    Messages:
    5,097
    Location:
    Canada
    From http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111122&content_id=26027540&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb
     
  23. Blitz24

    Blitz24 Premium

    Messages:
    14,474
    Location:
    United States
    Biggio is the only guarantee next year. I could see the others (Bonds, Sosa, Clemens and Piazza - one of which was never actually indicted for taking steroids) failing to make it.
     
  24. Barra333

    Barra333 Premium

    Messages:
    5,097
    Location:
    Canada
    I think the keyword in the passage I quoted is controversial. There will be plenty of debate over whether they should get in or not.
     
  25. CMvan46

    CMvan46

    Messages:
    2,547
    Location:
    Canada
    I really hope all those who took steroids don't get in. It's one of the biggest deterents the MLB has against steroids and they need to take advantage of it. If you cheat in the MLB your achievements aren't recognized, simple. We don't know what these guys would have accomplished without steroids and you can't assume they would have been great without them. Putting them in is only condoning what they did to the sport.
     
  26. Blitz24

    Blitz24 Premium

    Messages:
    14,474
    Location:
    United States
    Then the rule needs to be expanded to all players who were indicted or were actually caught. That means that Palmeiro, Manny, A-Rod and Braun are all banned from the HOF to start with.
     
  27. Prosthetic

    Prosthetic

    Messages:
    3,542
    Location:
    United States
    Should Babe Ruth be eliminated from the HoF? What about Hank Aaron?


    Anabolic steroids weren't banned in MLB until 2002 and HGH in 2005. The time frame that Bonds was suspected of using the cream was in 99' when he was recovering from his infamous elbow surgery which had him almost the full season. It was incredibly common for coaches, trainers, managers, and even owners to push players into various substances to speed up recovery. And its the same story with most of the other people named.

    Steroids was full supported by every owner and Selig. Was it a problem? Yeah, you could say that but they didn't think so.

    My point is, players of the 90's and early 00's are so unfairly targeted and prosecuted while every great before 1980 is revered despite the common use of cork bats and amphetamines. Things that were AGAINST the rules, but NOT enforced the way they are now. But its STILL perfectly ok that they went against the rules while there was NO rule up until 02'-05' depending on substance. There are even drugs out there used as masking agents that have other BENEFITS and that have ZERO effect on a players strength/ability. Yet they are still labeled as PED's... Edison Volquez is labeled a roider despite the fact he was using a fertility drug to help get his wife pregnant.


    BAN HIM FROM THE GAME!! DISGRACE!!!!

    But I'll take all those millions he made for us... /Selig
     
  28. CMvan46

    CMvan46

    Messages:
    2,547
    Location:
    Canada
    No Babe Ruth should not be taken out because steroids weren't illegal at that point. Things is they were when all those guys eligible this year did the majority of their work that has them in the discussion.

    Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron didn't cheat the game. Barry Bonds did. Were him and the other recent ones helped and encouraged by owners, agents, and Selig? Of course there is no questioning that however there were other all-star callibre players who were able to do it without cheating the game by using steroids.

    I hate how all pro sports hall of fames operate. I hate all of their selection processes and it's a ridiculous system. Personally, a player should be judged against his own generation and there should be no magic unwritten numbers you must attain before getting consideration.

    Those who took steroids in the 70s and 80s were not cheating anything and everybody had steroids as an option for enhancing performance. Because of that, the achievements of the best players in those eras whether they were using steroids or not are still valid. They are he best players of their respective generation when steroids were the norm and perfectly legal. The thing is they aren't legal anymore and haven't been for some time. Whether they were encouraged or not they still had the final say and they decided to take them anyway, that is cheating, and cheating doesn't belong in the hall. /rant

    I apologize for the all over the map and very little structure to that but it was a rant and I wasn't thinking much about that.


    Oh and Blitz I agree their achievements to this point should be wiped if they are still active. If they can prove they are clean from here through the end of their careers and can put up numbers that get them into the hall them I'm all for electing them in. I agree with second chances but for some its far to late which is a brutal thing because the owners and Selig will never pay the consequences of that, only the players will.
     
  29. Villain

    Villain Premium

    Messages:
    4,687
    Location:
    United States
    You'll have to excuse Prosthetic. His team's greatest player was the greatest roider in MLB history.

    [​IMG]

    He's trained to be sympathetic.
     
  30. Prosthetic

    Prosthetic

    Messages:
    3,542
    Location:
    United States
    Considering the very first steroids were under development in the mid 30's it was awhile before they were widely used by the public. No, Babe Ruth didn't using any kind of growth hormone, he drank beer, ate hot dogs and smoked. Baseball players weren't very good athletes back then, Ruth is no different. But he was able to hit a fastball, and something that helped him hit a fastball was the fact he used a corked bat.

    Except most of these players prime was pre-anabolic steroid and HGH ban. But they are still guilt... what are you smoking.




    I've already explained Ruth and Aaron multiple times. Aaron is very well known for using amphetamines, and has even admitted it... Bonds has admitted to using HGH that Greg Anderson rubbed on him to help recover from an injury. HGH substances weren't banned until 2005, two years before Bonds last at bat. And was forced out of baseball so who knew how many more years he would of been productive, as he was still a very good player in 07'. But an interesting thing is... Bonds has NEVER failed a test for a banned substance, that's why he has been laughing at the court because no one really has any proof once so ever. Innocent until proven guilty under the court of law, MLB should be the same.

    There was also a ton of career minor leaguers that were never any good at the major league level that were known substance abusers. Every team was full of them.

    You do compare to there own generation. But Baseball is a game of numbers, it always HAS been and always WILL be. That will never change. If you can't except that then stop watching because you obviously don't understand this game one bit. Players will always be compared to the past and the present. Its just how it is.

    Players didn't really use any sort of steroids then though, not until the 90's really. Mostly amphetamines, which WERE and still are banned.


    Yeah and that goes for the same up until the ban of the substance in 02'-05'.

    You do realize there is many ways to take one of these substances, and it wasn't uncommon for coaches, trainers, managers to give players something and say its something completely different. Players trusted these people more then, then they do now.

    Clearly.


    More like I don't ignore facts. But unless you guys can actually post something factual instead of talking out your ass then you might make more of a case then the courts were able too.

    I defend everyone in that era, not just Bonds.

    But while your at it, go look up picture of early Pujols and the Pujols of now.