Hey Dodgers Fans

494,894 Views | 4344 Replies | Last: 4 days ago by Beardog26
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
YuSeeBerkeley;842109105 said:

You can justify it however you want, but there's no asterisk on any of the Dodgers' titles.


Yes, I'm sure Kirk Gibson didn't take any substance that enhanced his performance in 1988. And I'm sure no Dodger was on stimulants in 1981 or 1988. GTFO.
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pee Wee Reese was clean, hence his nick name
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
YuSeeBerkeley;842109105 said:

You can justify it however you want, but there's no asterisk on any of the Dodgers' titles.


Fun fact! In the 1988 NCLS, Dodgers closer Jay Howell was thrown out of a game (and most of the series) for throwing a doctored ball. Cheaters!
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
grandmastapoop;842108663 said:

Limiting to LA vs. SF is as arbitrary as me limiting the count to those in my lifetime (born April 1982, so 2-1 SF).


GMP stick to one team, man. I thought you were an Angels fan.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842108690 said:

Hey I'm happy the Dodger have the bucks AND are willing to spend it. It's going to be great.


Of course Giants fans have an easy approach to take. If the Dodgers win, it's because of their money. If they lose, they say "haha money doesn't buy you championships." Let's just see how they do on the field -- it's a long road. I admit and concede completely that the Giants had another magical season last year and I envy that for my team. Similarly, I envy what's going on at Michigan in basketball and wish that for Cal. Congrats on last season, Giants fans.
glb78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Classy post KAB and very true. As a Giants fan, I can't stand the Dodgers, but I do respect them as a storied franchise. As for steroids in baseball, they seem to go way back. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-05-03-steroids-house_x.htm
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
glb78;842109324 said:

Classy post KAB and very true. As a Giants fan, I can't stand the Dodgers, but I do respect them as a storied franchise. As for steroids in baseball, they seem to go way back. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-05-03-steroids-house_x.htm


+1
KAB is my favorite Doyers fan.
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842109370 said:

Okay if you won't talk smack, I will.

I'm just happy the Dodgers are now owned by non-idiots after Murdoch and Parking Lot guy...and now they're willing to drop some money to win.

As for being civil to Giants fans, what can I say. Closest friends are likely Giants fans, as are in-laws, relatives, ex's, etc. I have always been polite to them over the years as they suffered. Never talked smack or got into it and we're talking about guys who got drunk at the Stick in the Left Field Bleachers, started fights, ending up in the paddy wagon. The kind of guys in HS would stick a kid's head in the toilet. And yet I was always nice about it.

So after the first WS title by the Giants in '10 I was happy for them and pleasant, and they returned it. However in '12 the smack talk came out and Giants fans were suddenly like Red Sox fans...former losers who now talk smack. So now it's time for payback.

I will give the Giants this: right now they look like the team of the present with the fire power but the future and big bucks will make the Dodgers real monsters and Giant fans will soon remember that distaste in their months. I'll still be nice to them but only after the natural order has been restored. After years of penny pinching and retardation, the Dodgers are back and going to drop MAJOR COIN and it's going to be great!

I think we can all agree that the rivalry is back and that's great.


Pot, meet kettle.
stanfurdbites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842109370 said:


I think we can all agree that the rivalry is back and that's great.


Win something. Then it'll be on.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842109370 said:

So after the first WS title by the Giants in '10 I was happy for them and pleasant, and they returned it. However in '12 the smack talk came out and Giants fans were suddenly like Red Sox fans...former losers who now talk smack. So now it's time for payback.


Yes, and I love the fact that Giants fans are actually in a position to talk smack now. Never thought I'd see that in my lifetime. :bravo
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842109407 said:

Sorry the Giants don't have the same amount of coins!


Keep spending it like a drunken sailer. We'll see how that works out for you. :-)
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear;842109309 said:

GMP stick to one team, man. I thought you were an Angels fan.


I lived in OC till I was 7, and was an Angels fan then. But I've been a Giants fan since then. I like the Angels - they're my favorite AL team, but not like the Giants.
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842109434 said:

Worked for the Yankees. Worked for the Lakers. Not perfect and often weird but it worked. I'd rather have it than not. BTW, $213m p/y, nothing. Dodgers are going to break $300m.


Magic owns a lot of theaters and Starbucks in the hood. Lol
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
2ndTrumpetBear;842108980 said:

Cal's heading to the Final Four and Los Gigantes blank the bums.

A great day in sports.


FTFY

:chainsaw
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
grandmastapoop;842109433 said:

I lived in OC till I was 7, and was an Angels fan then. But I've been a Giants fan since then. I like the Angels - they're my favorite AL team, but not like the Giants.


GMP I'm just trying to yank your chain. But I have to say that I don't find how the LA Dodgers and SF Giants performance comparison is so arbitrary. I get what you're saying but it seems like it is one reasonable way to compare. Of course traditionalists will compare their New York experience too. But if you're a Oklahoma City fan do you revel in Jack Sikma's Supersonics title? There's no real answer. Anyway, fun thread as always.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear;842109732 said:

But I have to say that I don't find how the LA Dodgers and SF Giants performance comparison is so arbitrary. ... Anyway, fun thread as always.


Agree that this is a fun thread and should provide ample entertainment over the twists and turns of the summer.

As for the comparison of success, does it really matter? None of us plays for the Giants or Dodgers so we can't take credit for their wins or blame for their losses. I'm happy the Giants have had great success the last few years - because I've lived through it and experienced the highs and lows of the seasons, but none of that says anything about me just as the franchise's futility over the preceding years said nothing about me.

It seems to me you are asking how do we compare the Giants 2 world series in the last 3 years and 5 world series titles in NY against the Dodgers 1 title in Brooklyn and 5 in LA but most recently 25 years ago? There is no right answer here. How much more pride should you have in the 1959 LA dodgers title than the Giants fans feel about the 1955 NY Giants title?

The bottom line is that fans want to say scoreboard and point to whatever it is that they feel allows them to do so. It's no different with dodgers and giants than it is with pac-12 football teams. FUCLA will say it has scoreboard for winning the pac-12 south this year while we will point to the fact that we smoked them in CMS.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842109434 said:

Worked for the Yankees. Worked for the Lakers. Not perfect and often weird but it worked. I'd rather have it than not. BTW, $213m p/y, nothing. Dodgers are going to break $300m.


You can buy a bunch of individuals but you cannot make a team with $$. Arizona is a much bigger threat to the Giants because they are hungry and play like a team.

The key to success is to aquire players on the cheap (through draft or free agency) before they become great and lose them before they become overpriced. See Arias, Ross, B. Wilson, Pagan etc. The Giants made some mistakes with guys like Zito, Rowand, Durham and Huff. But they learned from those mistakes and let go of Uribe and their WS shortstop (name escapes).

The Giants have one of the most home grown rosters in all of baseball and have been able to sign most of them to long term contracts when the time came.

Cain
Baumgarner
Lincecum
Posey
Sandoval
Romo
Posey
Belt
Sanchez
Noonan
Pill
Crawford
Vogelsong

Recently the Giants made a decision to move away from big name hitters and focus on small ball and pitching. But they have always scouted and drafted heavily on pitching, drafting well over 50% of their players as pitchers.

The Giants are also one of the more innovative organizations in branching out to Asia and Latin America.

The Giants front office is always innovative in energy, using solar technology for their ballpark.

As long as the Dodgers have loads of money, the will never have the incentive to be imaginative as the A's have had to be and hence innovation will never be their strongpoint. I'm glad the Dodgers think they can win with $$. That means they have already conceeded defeat when it comes to really being sophisticated about baseball. It also means their rosters will be top heavy with overprices big name has-beens. Good luck with that.

If you think $$= success in baseball then you aren't paying attention. The A's and Tampa Bay are more successful than the Yankees. Florida spent a bunch of money on free agents last year, only to release most of them this year.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842109763 said:

Look it's this simple - I'd rather have the bucks to spend on players. It's not perfect but it's an advantage. Ask the freakin' Yankees with 27 WS titles. Them titles weren't freebies and over the long run money helps. I'm just glad the new Dodgers owners have opened their wallets.


I think you should read and/or watch money ball. Or at least study the 2012 Oakland A's.

Because this is a rather questionable statement when you consider that the Dodgers were spending quite a bit of money under Murdoch and that most of the Yankees 27 titles were before Steinbrenner owned the team.

A more scientific examination will show that the Yankees obsession with celebrity, under steinbrenner, has signicantly and negatively impacted their level of success. In fact the same can be said for the Red Sox as well. Detroit was lucky to get as far as they did last year, despite a huge spending spree and a super star laden roster. But they still were clearly no match for the Giants.

The Giants are not daunted by other giants. Here are the giants that the Giants killed in recent years.

2010 Dodgers, Phillies, Braves, Texas
2012 Dodgers, Reds, Cardinals, Tigers

During this span, the Giants have outdueled many super star pitchers and shut down many super-star laden teams.

There was a period of time when superstars ran the game. But since the drug crack down, the advent of new statistics (Bill James) and the revlolution in training, other qualities like control pitching, impeccable defense and speed are changing the game. That is the reason Japan is so successful on the world stage. Some organizations are aware of this. I'm not sure the Dodgers are. 2 errors yesterday cost the Dodgers a chance to win. In any case, players that score well in the new metrics don't cost much money anyway if you discover them first. That is why the A's can afford them.
RaphaelAglietti
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's more efficient spending. Having more is better than having less but having more does not guarantee success.

Giants have been wasteful at time as well in recent times. (Dave Roberts, Barry Zito, Aaron Rowan, etc.)

The Dodgers should be quite good but you can't buy chemistry and leadership and those are two things that the Dodgers have to demonstrate they have before they are able to achive anything on the diamond.

The Giants are never going to be confused with the '27 Yankees but they have players who are characters instead of guys rolling out there devoid of emotion/personality and that's what makes them successful and what the fans pick-up on.

If the Dodgers are going to be successful they're going to need their fanbase as as well as the team to influence each other.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear;842109777 said:

I think you should read and/or watch money ball. Or at least study the 2012 Oakland A's.


Well, let's be fair now. Part of the point of Moneyball was that it was about how the A's managed to succeed DESPITE having less money -- in other words, the book basically acknowledges up front that being a richer team is an advantage. The A's were undertaking methods to even the odds after starting from a disadvantageous position. So yeah, all else being equal it is better to have money than not.

Here's the issue with the Dodgers, though -- I don't think they are spending money in the right places. They've been loading up on guys who are injury-prone and/or on the wrong side of 30 and handing them big contracts. The two I think were reasonably good acquisitions are Adrian Gonzalez and Hanley Ramirez, since they are actual superstar-level players when at their best and generally it's worth it to pay those guys. That said, Gonzalez is a slow, big-bodied first baseman who draws walks and hits home runs -- those guys don't tend to age well. Ramirez is already starting this season on the DL and hasn't shown the ability to match his 2007-09 peak since then. The issue is not that the Dodgers are spending money, it's that they might be spending the most money in the majors to get themselves to 88 wins. That might be good enough to make a playoff run, but it also might not be good enough to make the playoffs at all.
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The big teams can afford to spend money and have a miss or two but you have to be smart and a little lucky. The Mets and Cubs are neither. Yankees, Phillies and Sox have been smart enough to compete but as an example the Red Sox attempted to rebuild their team by signing
Gonzalez , Crawford and Lackey and failed on all three. You can't afford that .
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842109792 said:

Here's what I'm going to say to you Giants/Niners fans - Eddie D dropped a buttload of bucks on players salaries. Those rings were not cheap or free. He was the freakin' king of $$$ and that's why the NFL started the cap, and the Niners played that as well.

As the silly saying goes, money talks, bullsh*t walks. Ask any player who has a limited shelf life. Money absolutely helps winning. Eddie D knew it, Jerry Buss knew it. Magic Johnson knows it.

Otherwise I agree, money is *NOT* the solution but it's a irreplaceable tool if used wisely and can pay off big time. Ideally I'd like to see a 2 prong approach: drop bucks on the farm system, drop bucks to keep and sign players who can help. Develop a method to the madness. That's the one thing I do object to - tossing money at problems just because you can.

Dodgers use to have the greatest farm system before Murdoch. They bring that back AND have the money and it could be hell on the rest of MLB.


Murdoch had enough money to make a difference, if he had spent it wisely. Supposedly this new team has more baseball smarts. But it is the smarts more than the money that will make the difference. The trouble is, when you have that much money, the voices of the smart people who advocate a long term, farm building, approach, ususally get drowned out by the ones who want immediate success. The Dodgers may have to spend enough to make both groups happy. I suppose that is the objective. But it is still not better than what the Giants already have: Sound management at all levels; great ballpark; great fans; a brand of baseball that is not dependent on superstar free agent signings.

The Giants have a revenue advantage over the Dodgers which amounts to the tune of 42,000 fans X 81 games per year. Even if the Dodgers build a new high class luxury stadium, I'm not sure you have that kind of fan base in LA.

In other words, even if all the investments pay-off, all you end up with is what the Giants already have.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842109827 said:



Attendance: please, the Dodgers were the first organization to draw 3 million in a season and that was a long time ago. They don't always make that number but for years they were close. Any way, have you seen or heard about the Dodgers TV contract? HAHAHA! It even shames the freakin' Yankees!


The dodgers TV contract is like the P12's - on top due to timing. SEC and BT will get theirs in a few years.... other MLB teams will too. Though the yanks appear locked into a contract until 2042, 85 million starting in 2012 with 5% raise per year, a lot of that is funny money calculations - they have ownership in the network and are also selling YES off to Fox in pieces for huge money as well (seemingly they have a 'low' per year contract, but are making money on the sale to circumvent revenue sharing).

And the differences in contracts in MLB are pretty staggering:

[quote=]
• Dodgers: $250 million*
• Angels: $147 million
• Yankees: $90 million
• Astros: $80 million
• Rangers: $80 million
• Mets: $65 million
• Red Sox: $60 million
• Cubs: $50 million
• Padres: $50 million
• Tigers: $50 million
• White Sox: $45.5 million
• Mariners: $45 million
• Indians: $40 million
• Blue Jays: $36 million
• Phillies: $35 million
• Diamondbacks: $31 million
• Reds: $30 million
• Nationals: $29 million
• Orioles: $29 million
• Twins: $29 million
• Brewers: $21 million
• Braves: $20 million
• Rays: $20 million
• Rockies: $20 million
• Royals: $20 million
• Marlins: $18 million
• Pirates: $18 million
• Cardinals: $14 million
• A’s: N/A
• Giants: N/A**
[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/24/4029709/baseball-tv-deals-growing-more.html#storylink=cpy[/COLOR][/LEFT]




These are also average per year over 20 years.. front end is probably 150 million/yr finishing around 350 million, just like the p12 contract.


Time Warner Cable is doing most of the spending in LA. I really have to wonder if they won't go bankrupt before the end of these contracts if they keep it up - as people start to pull the plug more and more on cable. TWC has a large presence in NYC, so even though they won't be starting a baseball network out there - but they will have to pay sub fees.

I wouldn't say the Yankees have been the wisest spenders either. They are getting taken for a ride with long term deals that are essentially 2x as long as a players' useful top producing period will last. Gotta be smart with the $$, too.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All this speaks to how disappointing pro sports have become. Basically people are rooting for their teams to become the yankees and outspend other teams in hopes of obtaining a championship. Before free agency baseball was great because your team had it's crappy players and you rooted for them to become better players so you would have a chance at a WS title. Robbie Thompson was my favorite player growing up - not because he was the best player on the team but because he was a Giant and I liked the way he played the game.

Now you have fans who basically say "I cheer for the guy making $15 million who plays second base and next year I'll cheer for the next guy who takes his place." There's so little continuity and people have so little investment in their individual players.

Ironically while everyone points to the money as the source of the yankee's success, it's pretty clear in retrospect that there was a core group of players that fueled their championship run that started in 1996 and that once those players exited their primes, it became a lot harder for the yankees to succeed in the postseason. If the Dodgers ultimately do win a championship with some semblance of their current cast, we'll probably point to Kershaw, Kemp, Ethier as their core.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks;842109851 said:

Ironically while everyone points to the money as the source of the yankee's success, it's pretty clear in retrospect that there was a core group of players that fueled their championship run that started in 1996 and that once those players exited their primes, it became a lot harder for the yankees to succeed in the postseason.


Very much this. When the Yankees had their run, it was with Jeter, Rivera, Pettitte, Bernie Williams, Posada, etc., mostly the homegrown talent that fueled that dynasty. Now I will grant that their money allowed them to KEEP these players rather than losing them to free agency and that is certainly a huge advantage for the Yankees, but generally they didn't win titles by signing a bunch of expensive free agents. Veteran free agents are a way to sustain a period of success a bit longer, not a way to build one.
LethalFang
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842109863 said:

Haha, like the Giants are broke or don't spend money. How much was Zito's contract?

Okay I get what you're saying but sports really is simply a reflection of the society at large. Money rules just about everything now, and yes that is sad.

Any way, if you hear smack talk from rivals teams, you want your team to compete. That's all I want however given how poorly the Dodgers have been run the past two go-rounds, drastic measures are in need. It's the same for pretty much any fan...and yes a lot of that is associated ego boast. Lets be honest, people like to win or follow winners.

Same goes for the fans for the California Golden Bears...they want wins as well, despite the crazy amateur status of players in a BILLION dollar industry.

I do agree that if the Dodgers win it, it will be the core but with the core comes keeping them. Keeping Kershaw is going to cost the most ever. And so it goes.


In that regard, I'd say investing in education is like funding your farm system. That is the approach that has finally brought the Giants 2 World Series titles.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842109863 said:

Haha, like the Giants are broke or don't spend money. How much was Zito's contract?


Is this in any way responsive to what I wrote? I wasn't defending the Giants - I was lamenting the current state of affairs in pro sports, and particularly baseball. I fully acknowledge that the reason the Giants are winning championships instead of the A's is because we can afford to make a few mistakes on free agents and keep our guys past arbitration eligibility.

I would prefer to see more continuity in baseball and some sort of reasonable salary cap to create somewhat of a level playing field. Would this help the Giants? Probably not, but it would make the game better.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842109863 said:

Haha, like the Giants are broke or don't spend money. How much was Zito's contract?

Okay I get what you're saying but sports really is simply a reflection of the society at large. Money rules just about everything now, and yes that is sad.

Any way, if you hear smack talk from rivals teams, you want your team to compete. That's all I want however given how poorly the Dodgers have been run the past two go-rounds, drastic measures are in need. It's the same for pretty much any fan...and yes a lot of that is associated ego boast. Lets be honest, people like to win or follow winners.

Same goes for the fans for the California Golden Bears...they want wins as well, despite the crazy amateur status of players in a BILLION dollar industry.

I do agree that if the Dodgers win it, it will be the core but with the core comes keeping them. Keeping Kershaw is going to cost the most ever. And so it goes.


I wouldn't confuse power and $$, which LA has a lot of, with effectiveness. Success is more closely tied to being effective. Lots of power and money can hide ineffectiveness for a while. But eventually all poor practices are replaced by better practices regardless of the money involved.

I find it encouraging that folks wanted to invest so much money in the Dodgers. With the kind of effectiveness the Giants have as an organization, I imagine it should be fairly easy for them to get investment $$ when they need it. That includes TV contracts. HA!

I have relatives from LA, so I don't expect you or any other LA fan (Lakers, Trojans, Bruins or Dodgers) to ever really respect northern california teams. The need to feel superior is part of who you are. As you imply when you use the phrase "restore the natural order". To you, anything other than LA superiority is antithetical. Hopefully the same attitude exists inside Dodger management. Because it is that sort of attitude that will inevitably generate poor and hasty decisions.

The Giants have a commitment to staying humble and earning everything through hard work and good practices. I think Magic Johnson is similar. But he is much more gracious than most.

Question: The Giants have money, but everything they do is in step with the average fan. Are the Dodgers, with all their money, going to be elitist or are they going to appeal to the average fan?

edit: screwed up on which of your posts I quoted. So much for my effectiveness. HA.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks;842109851 said:

All this speaks to how disappointing pro sports have become. Basically people are rooting for their teams to become the yankees and outspend other teams in hopes of obtaining a championship. Before free agency baseball was great because your team had it's crappy players and you rooted for them to become better players so you would have a chance at a WS title. Robbie Thompson was my favorite player growing up - not because he was the best player on the team but because he was a Giant and I liked the way he played the game.

Now you have fans who basically say "I cheer for the guy making $15 million who plays second base and next year I'll cheer for the next guy who takes his place." There's so little continuity and people have so little investment in their individual players.

Ironically while everyone points to the money as the source of the yankee's success, it's pretty clear in retrospect that there was a core group of players that fueled their championship run that started in 1996 and that once those players exited their primes, it became a lot harder for the yankees to succeed in the postseason. If the Dodgers ultimately do win a championship with some semblance of their current cast, we'll probably point to Kershaw, Kemp, Ethier as their core.


Essentially the point you are making is that people are rooting for mercenaries rather than patriots.

Here is a little historical note: During the revolutionary war, the British hired German mercenaries to help them defeat the Americans. The British were wealthier, better trained and had every advantage. But they were arrogant overconfident drunks that ended up largely defeating themselves in the end.

There is something to be said about a team that has emotional bonds and is playing from the heart. Teams that are built entirely through money bonds, rather than social bonds don't amount to much.

One of the problems with Cal under Tedford is that Tedford was distant (source-players themselves) and didn't develop strong bonds with his players. Dykes is different in that way.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear;842109900 said:

Essentially the point you are making is that people are rooting for mercenaries rather than patriots.


Exactly my point.

heartofthebear;842109900 said:


Here is a little historical note: During the revolutionary war, the British hired German mercenaries to help them defeat the Americans. The British were wealthier, better trained and had every advantage. But they were arrogant overconfident drunks that ended up largely defeating themselves in the end.

There is something to be said about a team that has emotional bonds and is playing from the heart. Teams that are built entirely through money bonds, rather than social bonds don't amount to much.


Here is a painful historical note - the Florida freaking Marlins won 2 world series, both at the expense of the Giants, with two team full of mercenaries (4 years apart and with very little overlap in key personnel). It is possible to win it all with mercenaries and an unsustainable roster.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks;842109901 said:

Exactly my point.



Here is a painful historical note - the Florida freaking Marlins won 2 world series, both at the expense of the Giants, with two team full of mercenaries (4 years apart and with very little overlap in key personnel). It is possible to win it all with mercenaries and an unsustainable roster.


I thought at least the 1st Florida championship was a low budget surprise underdog. I don't know as much about the later one. But, back then the Giants were almost entirely made up of free agents. I doubt that either Marlins team would be able to beat the more recent Giants teams.
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I love this thread...
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks;842109901 said:

Exactly my point.



Here is a painful historical note - the Florida freaking Marlins won 2 world series, both at the expense of the Giants, with two team full of mercenaries (4 years apart and with very little overlap in key personnel). It is possible to win it all with mercenaries and an unsustainable roster.


True but they couldn't sustain it. The fans stayed away because they knew ownership wasn't really committed to winning (and also because it's Miami). The Marlins are kind of the outlier here; usually that approach doesn't work. They tried it again last year and it collapsed spectacularly.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842109917 said:

True but they couldn't sustain it. The fans stayed away because they knew ownership wasn't really committed to winning (and also because it's Miami). The Marlins are kind of the outlier here; usually that approach doesn't work. They tried it again last year and it collapsed spectacularly.


I see what you did there- you brought it back around to the dodgers!

:hammer:
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842109858 said:

Very much this. When the Yankees had their run, it was with Jeter, Rivera, Pettitte, Bernie Williams, Posada, etc., mostly the homegrown talent that fueled that dynasty. Now I will grant that their money allowed them to KEEP these players rather than losing them to free agency and that is certainly a huge advantage for the Yankees, but generally they didn't win titles by signing a bunch of expensive free agents. Veteran free agents are a way to sustain a period of success a bit longer, not a way to build one.


Except for their pitchers. Mariano was home grown; Pettite, maybe although they got him back later, but Clemens, Wells, Coen, Messina and a ton of other free agents - many of whom-Pavano, Irabu, Kevin Brown, were disasters
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.