Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AdropOFvenom

  1. I got all of this information from http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/default.aspx

    Here is list of all of the World Series matchups since 2000 and where each team ranked in payroll that season.

    2000 Yankees (1) Mets (6)

    2001 Yankees (1) D-Backs (8)

    2002 Angels (15) Giants (10)

    2003 Yankees (1) Marlins (25)

    2004 Red Sox (2) Cardinals (9)

    2005 White Sox (13) Astros (12)

    2006 Tigers (14) Cardinals (11)

    2007 Red Sox (2) Rockies (25)

    2008 Rays (29) Phillies (13)

    If you average up the salary rank of teams that have made the World Series it is a tad under 11 (10.9). The average rank of Series winners is exactly 10. So although these averages are in the top half of MLB they are much closer to the league average than the league high (10 and 11 being closer to 15 than 1).

    Since 2004, only one team in the top ten in payroll has even made the World Series, the 2007 Red Sox, while 2 in the bottom 5 of payroll have.

    Looking at these numbers, I really don't see the argument for a salary cap. Baseball does have it fair share of parity.

    No offense, but you just proved the opposite, IMO

    15/18 teams (83%) that Made the World Series that you listed had a Payroll in the Top Half of the league. You just proved that those that have money have a significantly greater chance of team success then those that do not have money. While there is the occasional outlier (Such as last years Rays), the trend there is clear.

    Those that have money Win more games, Make the playoffs more often, Make it to the World Series more often, and Win the World Series more often, then those that do not have money. I'm not sure why that is a shocking concept to anybody, and it illustrates the need for a Salary Cap (And Floor).

  2. Since 2000, 8 teams have won the World Series. The Yankees, D-Backs, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox (2), White Sox, Cardinals, and Phillies. Baseball has plenty of parity.
    Yankees - 1st in Salary

    Red Sox (2) - 4th in Salary

    White Sox - 5th in Salary

    Angels - 6th in Salary

    Cardinals - 11th in Salary

    Phillies - 13th in Salary


    Diamondbacks - 23rd in Salary

    Marlins - 30th in Salary

    Notice the disparity now? 7 of the Last 9 World Champions ranked 13th or better in Salary.

  3. 20 different teams have made the post season the last 4 seasons. Facts are facts.

    Yankees - 3

    Rays - 1

    Red Sox - 3

    White Sox - 2

    Indians - 1

    Twins - 1

    Tigers - 1

    Angels - 3

    Athletics - 1

    Braves - 1

    Mets - 1

    Phillis - 2

    Cubs - 2

    Brewers- 1

    Cardinals - 2

    Astros - 1

    Diamondbacks - 1

    Dodgers - 2

    Padres - 2

    Rockies - 1

    The facts suggest that the big market teams are much more likely to make the postseason then the small market teams are.

    Of the teams that have made the playoffs multiple times over the last 4 years, the only "Small Market" team that qualifies is the San Diego Padres, and as much of that has to do with the NL West as anything else. The rest of them (NYY, Boston, CWS, LAA, Philadelphia, CHC, St Louis, LAD) are all in the Top Half of the league in salary, if not the Top 5 (Going by 2008 Salary numbers).

    Of the Top 10 teams in Salary in the league, only Seattle has not made the Postseason in the last 4 years. Of the Bottom 10 teams in Salary in the league, 6 of them (Florida, Pittsburgh, Washington, Kansas City, Texas, and Baltimore) have not made the postseason in the last 4 years.

    You can choose to cherry-pick stats that fit your argument, but the playing field is not level. That's just the reality of the matter and you are in straight denial if you try and claim otherwise. You know I'm a Mets fan, and that my team has a considerable advantage because of the way the rules are in place now, and yet I'd still support a salary cap (As long as it comes with a salary floor) because it's what's right.

  4. As of 11:26 AM, Shea Stadium is no more.

    Awaiting pictures....

    This is interesting though.

    David Lennon of Newsday reports, Mets COO Jeff Wilpon says the pitchers mound and the bases, including home plate, will be ‘immortalized in the parking lot.’
  5. Good post. Any field that has dirt base paths during football season sucks. Also, the orientation of the playing field at Shea for Jet games was all screwed up, with most of the fans too far from the action.

    Yeah, nevermind that the Grass in the Corner Outfield of Shea was constantly dead for baseball games because of the stands alignment.



    And of course that the seats were pointed straight forward and not towards Home Plate, so anybody sitting in the Outfield of Shea was sure to get a sore neck during baseball games.

  6. Well, the main issue with Shea from Day 1 IMO was that it was designed to be a multi-sport facility to accommodate football as well and because of such, it was poorly designed for both because each sport has different needs.

    • Upvote 1
  7. Reyes is a great hitter, I don't really see why he wouldn't perform hitting 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. I think people often make too much into typecasting a player in a certain role.

    Castillo, I think a lot of this is assuming that he bounces back close to his .300/.370 career numbers, in which case he would be a decent lead-off hitter. If he's still hitting .250/.350 though like last year obviously you can't justify hitting him lead-off.

  8. yeah but the phillies have a payroll around 100 million......so they're not considered a cheap team, imo. 70 million floor 140 million ceiling. something like that.

    Phillies have actually thrown around quite a bit of money this offseason, mainly paying their own arbitration guys though. I haven't seen the numbers, but their payroll has gotta be around 120 million. Easy.

    Edit: Google works wonders. Estimated to be around 131.5 million


  9. the guys only had a couple of seaosns where his era was respectable (below 4.00) and he had one very good season....with a 3.05. era. he'll be a decent #5, but i doubt much more. when healthy he can eat innings, and that makes him valuable......a #5 who can eat innings and not waste your bullpen will be huge for us.....the year he won 17 with the sox he also had a 4.53 era......nothing to brag about. although his whip is usually decent.......i'll say, if he's healthy and starts 30 games for us, he'll have around a 4.20 era and maybe 10 wins.

    Garcia has a Career 4.07 ERA and a 1.29 WHIP. This of course being almost entirely in the American League with the DH. The man was a very good pitcher pre-Injury. No question about it.

    I'm not sure how much I trust his health report, everybody this time of year claims to be in the "best shape of their lives" blah blah blah, and even if he is 100% healthy, is he still 100% of the pitcher he was pre-Injury? But there's some real upside to the Garcia signing, no doubt about it.

  10. Clemens has been a disappointment since we drafted him. Jets actions concerning Clemens and his role on the team since being drafted:

    Placed 3rd on depth chart behind Patrick Ramsey in 2006.

    Meant nothing except that they wanted him to carry a clipboard for the 2006 season instead of having him worrying about potentially being thrust into action before he's ready. Brett Ratliff was 3rd string last season (Behind Kellen Clemens), by your obviously flawed logic shouldn't that speak to just how little we think about him? Chad Pennington was 3rd string as a rookie (Behind Ray Lucas) only to eventually become our starter, Shall I go on?

    Not given a chance as starter in 2007 until season is completely lost with QB going 1-8.

    A team coming off a playoff birth (With the other QB) didn't want to go with the Young QB until the season was lost? Shocking!

    Still says almost nothing about their true thoughts about Kellen.

    Loses starting job and placed in competition with previously benched QB.

    Speculation. There was never any decision made, nor did the competition reach the point of Preseason games. We don't know for sure who would have won the competition. Admittedly it wasn't looking good for Kellen, but preseason games are far more important in a competition then practices in shorts and the red jersey, so it's not fair to assume Pennington would have won.

    Developmental QB drafted in 2008.

    A 5th Round pick, not a serious threat to Kellen's job status.

    You're acting like they took another QB in the 1st or 2nd round...

    Trade for Favre.

    Finally something that might actually have some credibility behind it, although I will point out that Favre was pretty much expected to be a 1 year rental from Day 1, and not a long-term solution.

    In this span, they passed up on potential long-term solutions like Brady Quinn, Joe Flacco, Chad Henne, ect. Surely, if they were so down on Kellen Clemens like you claim, it would have made sense to draft another "Franchise QB", no?

    Put in competition for starting job amongst a couple of no name QB's.

    So a QB who has not had a ton of NFL success to date isn't getting a job handed to him? Shocking!

    Sorry, not buying it.

  11. Does that really matter?


    Who cares where he got it? Does it make a difference if it was his trainer, or a doctor, or a teammate? Should he rat them out?

    Well, if it was a team doctor or a team trainer that would suggest the league wasn't oblivious to, and in fact, encouraging PED use. But that's not really my point.

    My point is that he gave a half-hearted apology IMO and I don't believe we can really believe that hes "coming clean" until he admits to what he was putting in his body (It doesn't have to be the exact drug name, Steroids would be just fine) and how he got it (He doesn't have to name a specific name, an unnamed teammate, approached by a stranger, someone employed by him, ect.) You don't take something for 3 years without having a good idea of what it is. Nobody is that stupid.

    And we supposedly know what he got from the test results.

    True, but he never admitted to it, and I don't think anybody is buying his "Loosy Goosey" explanation.

  12. I really don't understand this love/hate for Ratliff/Clemens.

    Why does it have to be, "I love Ratliff, so Clemens sucks" and vice versa? It's the Zero-sum gain mentality of in order to elevate someone another person must be brought down.

    Clemens performed well in the 2007 preseason and not so well in the season. That does not automatically mean that what Ratliff did in 2008 preseason should be diminished. By the same token, being bad in preseason doesn't mean a QB will be bad in the regular season (look at Cassell's 2008 preseason).

    What he said. I don't really care which QB it is, I just hope one of them step up and prove capable of being that guy for us.

  • Create New...