Odds & Ends: Fielder, Lincoln, Gorzelanny, Lee, Haren

Links for Sunday..


64 Responses to Odds & Ends: Fielder, Lincoln, Gorzelanny, Lee, Haren Leave a Reply

  1. “Larry Brooks of the New York Post would like to see the Mets aggressively attempt to trade for Cliff Lee.”

    Ugh. This is gonna start a “the Mets have no farm system” discussion, isn’t it?

    • Hopefully since we’ve said it ad nauseum, it won’t.

      • aap212 5 years ago

        It’s not true. The Mets have prospects vastly superior to what Lee commanded in the offseason.

    • johnsilver 5 years ago

      Don’t know about thin farm system, but means he would only have to move across town when he becomes a FA.

    • caseyB 5 years ago

      Well, 6 of the starting 9 yesterday for the Mets are homegrown and they did just fine. The reports of a terrible farm system were extremely and wildly over-exaggerated, if not downright wrong.

      As for Brook’s piece, he states the obvious. Of course the Mets will go after Lee. They’ve already said many times they have room to add to the payroll so money isn’t a factor. The only obstacles at this point are: 1) Seattle’s willingness to trade Lee. As of right now, they are not willing. 2) Seattle’s asking price & whether the Mets want to give up the players the Mariners demand. If they ask for Davis or Niese, for example, I wouldn’t do it.

      As for Lee “moving across” town when he becomes a free agent, that would be the biggest argument for getting a payroll cap. No team should be allowed to “buy” their way to success to that extent. It’s bad enough as it is. If the Yankees signed Lee, that means they would have bought the top 3 starting pitchers to become free agents over the last 5 years. Hopefully Pettitte keeps having a good year and the Yankees will feel compelled to resign him at a high price over the winter, making it less likely they will shell out the 18-20 million yearly necessary to sign Lee.

      • aap212 5 years ago

        If the Yankees want to give multiple years and mega money to a 31-year old with three years of good performance, that’s fine. Sure they won the first year they had Teixeira, Sabathia, and Burnett, but two of those guys are going to be wildly overpaid halfway through their contracts. You can’t actually buy a bunch of championships. It doesn’t work that way, and people are over-sensitive about it.

        • caseyB 5 years ago

          Of course you can “buy” a championship. Yes, it does work that way. The 2009 Yankees are the classic example. Does that mean you can ALWAYS buy one? No. But you can certainly “buy” one in the classic sense. And the way baseball is set up today, you can almost ALWAYS “buy” competitiveness — to the point of making the playoffs — unless your team is badly mismanaged somehow.

          • aap212 5 years ago

            You can buy an excellent shot at *a* championship, but 1) Nothing’s ever better than a good shot in baseball, and 2) You can’t build a sustainable core or dynasty through free agency. When the Yankees actually won multiple titles, it was with young homegrown talent at the heart of the team. The Red Sox have had to constantly turn over their roster to stay at the top.

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            app, to some degree we are talking semantics here. Let me put it this way: the more you spend relative to your competitors (ie, the bigger the payroll advantage), the BIGGER shot you have at a championship. So, yes, in this sense, you can absolutely buy a title if your advantage is huge. “You can’t build a sustainable core or dynasty through free agency”No one said you could. That is not the issue. The issue is what wins the whole enchilada, and let me tell you — you can’t win on just a core these days. Or, you can win on just a core (w/o the free agents) but it’s the very rare exception. “When the Yankees actually won multiple titles, it was with young homegrown talent at the heart of the team. The Red Sox have had to constantly turn over their roster to stay at the top.”Yes, the Yankees used a young core to win — but they also needed pricey free agents and the biggest payrolls in baseball, plus PEDs. So again, this “core” argument is almost pointless. This idea that the Yankees core was the key to sustained winning is a little flimsy. That Yankee core did virtually nothing for the last decade until Cashman went out and spent a gazillion dollars on 3 top free agents in the same winter.

          • aap212 5 years ago

            1) If you can’t even spell my three letter username correctly, I doubt it’s worth arguing with you.

            2) Who were the pricey free agents in their ’90s world series teams? David Cone and Hideki Irabu? The core was mostly supplemented with players they acquired by trade, like Knoblauch and Clemens. Sure, they had a payroll advantage when it came to those players, but the Blue Jays could afford Clemens and the Twins got the better end of that trade. The Rangers had plenty of money and were foolish to trade A-Rod. His contract wasn’t the problem with their team.

            3) Again, I’m talking about sustainable championship contention, not winning the first year or two after you sign the whole free agent market. That requires the homegrown core. It IS the point. If the Yankees want to spend $400+ million to win ONE championship, the rest of baseball should be happy their advantage is so little for so much money.

            4) On the PED front, grow up. Everyone wants to say that everybody was juicing, except for when their argument requires them to blame only one team or one player. I see no evidence that the Yankees were juicing much more than any team. Bernie, Jeter, and Rivera have never been implicated. Not to mention, in 2001, they lost the world series to a team with perhaps the most suspicious player of the steroid era (Luis Gonzalez).

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            1) Wow, why so touchy? I make an honest mistake on your made-up screen name and you make a federal case out of it. Obviously, if you had used a normal name like Dave or Joe, I wouldn’t have made the slip. Regardless, no need to nitpick spelling errors. 2) I said “pricey free agents AND THE BIGGEST PAYROLLS.” What some defenders of the system often neglect to mention is that it’s not just the ability to buy the priciest free agents that matters, but also the ability to overpay and inflate your payroll in order to keep your own pricey talent or accept heavy salary dumps like A-Rod. It’s all those things. As for specific free agents during those early years, count Cone and Williams among them. And later, they were joined by the likes of A-Rod, Sheffield, Giambi, Matsui, Pavano, Abreu, Pettitte and Clemens on their second tours, and of course Sabbathia, Teixeira, and Burnett last year – all players the Yankees outbid for, or were able to afford as salary dumps. Not to mention being able to overpay Rivera, Jeter and A-Rod to retain them. What you also fail to mention is even if a team like the Jays or Rangers can afford an occasional player like Clemens or A-Rod, those investments tend to destroy their payroll structure, and those teams can ill afford to fill out a roster with the other talent needed to be competitive. A-Rod’s contract certainly was a problem with that Rangers team. 3) Lots of teams can build good cores – see Boston of late, the Twins, the Phillies – but on its own it leads to very little or short-lived success without the addition of a big payroll. Even with a core and a huge payroll, the Yankees couldn’t sustain much of anything over the last decade. So it’s that much harder for teams with much limited payrolls to succeed with just a good core. Really, building a good core is irrelevant to this discussion. It’s not an irrelevant thing – just irrelevant to my initial post. The only relevant issue here is payroll disparity.4) You grow up, aap. (Happy, now?). Throwing around personal insults in a forum like this is a sure sign of immaturity and a sign of a weak position. And don’t make broad general statements like “everyone wants to say everyone was juicing” because that’s BS. Don’t speak for everyone. And, no, everyone was NOT juicing (and I’ve never said otherwise). And if you see no evidence that the Yankees were juicing more heavily than other teams, then you must have had your head in the sand the last few years. Clemens, Neagle, Stanton, Canseco, Justice, Grimsley, Hill, Pettitte, Knoblauch, Giambi, Sheffield, and A-Rod are all players where there is legitimate evidence of PEDs usage at or very close to the time they were playing for the Yankees. It’s like a who’s who of the PEDs era. I don’t know of any other ML team with such a huge PEDs roster, especially when it comes to high impact players. And you can talk of suspicions all you want (Gonzalez) but then you also have to implicate the other Yankees whom one might also be suspicious of but where there is no substantive proof (O’Neill, Martinez, Wells etc). But I won’t do that because I only point fingers where there is legitimate evidence to do so, and there is more for the Yankees than for any other team in ML history.

          • aap212 5 years ago

            You make some solid and reasonable points, but there are still some important things here you’re dismissing:

            1) If it’s all about the “big enchilada,” then why are you harping on the likes of Sheffield, Giambi, Pavano, etc.? That reinforces my point that signing lots of free agents may help your record and give you an advantage, but signing tons of top free agents only gives you a championship boost for a year or two. Most guys are in or nearing their declines by the time they hit free agency, which is why most free agent contracts are bad. The Yankees can absorb those mistakes better than most teams, but they didn’t win any enchiladas with Giambi or Randy Johnson.

            2) The ability to retain your own players is hugely important, you’re right. But you’re still underestimating the importance of the home grown core. No team in recent history has developed four players at the same general time as good as Jeter, Bernie, Petitte and Rivera. It’s better than the Phillies core or the Boston core.

            3) The idea that a contract like A-Rod’s cripples a team like the Rangers is nonsense. He gave them great production for the money, and if you had added his contract to the A’s of the same era, their payroll still would have been lower than the Rangers and they would have easily been the best team in baseball. The Rangers were wrecked by wasting tens of millions of dollars on players like Chan Ho Park, Juan Gonzalez, Carl Everett, Rusty Greer, Ismael Valdez, Todd Van Poppel, and a slew of others. If the Cardinals pay a dozen unproductive players seven figure salaries for their former fame, Albert Pujols’ upcoming mega-contract won’t be what’s holding them back.

            4) And yes, I’m going to get snippy if you’re going to throw Yankee-vintage Denny Neagle and Jose Canseco at me. There actually isn’t more legitimate evidence tying the Yankees to PED use than other teams. The A’s and Rangers top that list.

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            1) I harp on Sheffield and Giambi because they were among the high priced players acquired by the Yankees who were critical to making them competitive and getting to the playoffs while they were there. It matters little whether or not the Yankees won WS titles the years they were there. Without the two, maybe the Yankees don’t even make the playoffs in some of those years. Which brings me to my point that the core you are so ga-ga over was not enough to even be competitive in some years without the infusion of high-priced talent.

            Pavano is an example of where the Yankees went out and outbid everyone else for the top pitcher on the market that year. Then when he flops big time, they have the resources to completely cover up and sweep aside their mistake. No other team can do that with the regularity the Yankees do. Which is why I scoffed at your bringing up how much of a dud Texeira, Sabbathia and/or Burnett may become (not to mention A-Rod whose contract may be the biggest bust of all in a year or two).

            2) I think we agree a strong homegrown core is good for any team. Where we disagree is how good/essential the Yankee core has been relative to other cores. Which is really a big part of my point. I submit that without the huge payroll advantage and the PEDs, that core is not as great as you think it is. Maybe better but not by much. And, yes, I know what the so-called analysts (and SI) think. I just disagree. Rivera is truly great. But after him, I think the other three would have been more or less good but not great players if put on any other team without those huge Yankee advantages.

            3) I think MOST GMs including Doug Melvin would agree with me that teams with much smaller payrolls than the Yankees can ill afford to spend one-fourth of it on one player. It doesn’t matter that A-Rod gave Texas great production. They didn’t have the needed payroll flexibility to add the other key pieces to become competitive (or to cover up their mistakes to add more talent to become competitive, Park being one of their mistakes). And those other Rangers you mention weren’t that good because the club for the most part couldn’t afford to shop at Saks anymore after spending so much on A-Rod. They were relegated to K-Mart. As for suggesting you add A-Rod to the A’s of that era, what’s the point? There was no way they could ever have afforded him, his presence may have been a negative factor on the team because all of his teammates would have been making so much less (real resentment), and that means the A’s would not have had Chavez or Tejada, both of whom were critical to the A’s success during those years. Moreover, take A-Rod out of the super bandbox in Texas and his numbers those years are not as good. And BTW, look at the Rangers poor financial situation today. I think a big part of it was the A-Rod contract and the club’s ill-fated attempts to compete with the huge financial drain – an almost impossible task.

            4) Neagle was a big part of the Yankees 2000 postseason. Canseco was a big part of the Yankees stretch run in 2000 when they almost didn’t make the playoffs. If you want to get snippy over the truth, that’s your fault. Go ahead. I don’t care, now that I know it’s your modus operandi. And you are wrong … there actually is more legitimate evidence (you know, the type that you can submit to a court of law) linking more Yankees to PEDs usage than players from any other team in ML history. The A’s and especially Texas may come close, but don’t compare with the sheer numbers of high profile players implicated on the Yankees between 1995-2004. Even if those two teams did, the Yankees still had a huge advantage over every other team when you add in their payroll edge.

          • aap212 5 years ago

            “And, yes, I know what the so-called analysts (and SI) think. I just disagree. Rivera is truly great. But after him, I think the other three would have been more or less good but not great players if put on any other team without those huge Yankee advantages.”

            I don’t like Jeter, and know his profile is bigger because of New York, but if you think having a consistently healthy shortstop with a career .317/.387/.458 line isn’t downright extraordinary, especially when paired with one of the 20 best hitting centerfielders of all time and one of the 20 best hitting catchers of all time, then there’s no talking to you. It’s not the “Yankee advantage.” Those are great players.

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            You seem to be overly hung up on the Yankees older core. While good as a whole, they are overrated and proof of it is how little they could do over the last decade without the infusion of mega bucks free agents before the 2009 season. Jeter’s career OPS+ is only slightly higher than Larkin’s (121 vs. 116) so, no, I don’t think there is anything extraordinary about Jeter unless you think Larkin is extraordinary too and belongs in the HOF. While Williams & Posada were good hitters, neither have been very good fielders at their positions. And, again, the reason the Yankees could keep their core together was basically money. And as I’ve been saying, your obsession with the Yankees core is besides the point. Even if for the sake of this argument we say that core is better than most, the Yankees haven’t been able to come close to replicating it in the last decade with newer younger players. It’s really irrelevant to my main point — which is, core or no core, the Yankees can buy a competitive team unlike no other franchise in sports history, both because of their lofty resources and the lack of really meaningful payroll equity measures in MLB. And I think that’s a shame.

          • aap212 5 years ago

            I do think Larkin belongs in the hall of fame (so does Trammell, but that’s another chapter in the book of people undervaluing up the middle talent). And if you were to give Larkin much greater durability and longevity, he would be an easy hall of famer on merit. Larkin didn’t win much and played in one of the very smallest markets in baseball, so he had kind of a reverse Jeter boost. In any case, I think Larkin belongs in the hall of fame, and Jeter’s a similar player who’s already played more games and taken the plate more.

            Anyway, I’m done with this argument. I have no interest in going in circles with you anymore.

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            Not winning much and playing in a much smaller market goes hand in hand in baseball over the last 15 years or so.

            But the impact goes beyond just wins and losses down to individual stats. Just think how much easier it is to hit in stacked lineups your whole career vs. the pressure that goes with hitting in thin lineups. So I submit that players like Jeter and Posada have always had that benefit and if they had spent their careers on lesser teams, would not have quite the same good stats they have now.

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            post in wrong place

          • aap212 5 years ago

            You can buy an excellent shot at *a* championship, but 1) Nothing’s ever better than a good shot in baseball, and 2) You can’t build a sustainable core or dynasty through free agency. When the Yankees actually won multiple titles, it was with young homegrown talent at the heart of the team. The Red Sox have had to constantly turn over their roster to stay at the top.

        • caseyB 5 years ago

          Of course you can “buy” a championship. Yes, it does work that way. The 2009 Yankees are the classic example. Does that mean you can ALWAYS buy one? No. But you can certainly “buy” one in the classic sense. And the way baseball is set up today, you can almost ALWAYS “buy” competitiveness — to the point of making the playoffs — unless your team is badly mismanaged somehow.

        • caseyB 5 years ago

          “…but two of those guys are going to be wildly overpaid halfway”

          With the resources the Yankees have, they don’t care. They can just throw more money into the payroll to mitigate the drain and damage of a few huge underperforming contracts. In the meantime, they will have bought a few WS titles (if their GM is any good).

          • aap212 5 years ago

            The only time in modern history the Yankees have rattled off a “few” WS titles is when they had a great, young, homegrown core. You can’t build that through free agency. Everyone panics because they won the world series in the first year with all those free agents, but it would be more troubling if they won in the fourth year with them. The Yankees have shown in the past, like when they passed on Beltran, that they do have limits. And in three years, when they’re likely to be paying A-Rod, Jeter, Sabathia, and Burnett a combined $80 million for no all-star production, they are going to have trouble.

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            “The only time in modern history the Yankees have rattled off a “few” WS titles is when they had a great, young, homegrown core” … the highest payrolls in baseball, plus key players who were juiced up.

            I finished it for you.

            “And in three years, when they’re likely to be paying A-Rod, Jeter, Sabathia, and Burnett a combined $80 million for no all-star production, they are going to have trouble.”

            Of course those contracts are going to turn bad. But when you have the resources to fix those expensive problems, like the Yankees do, then they don’t care. In the meantime, they will have bought a WS title. Only the Yankees can afford to “buy” a WS title like they did in 2009 AND then absorb those contracts when they turn bad and still be competitive.

          • aap212 5 years ago

            The only time in modern history the Yankees have rattled off a “few” WS titles is when they had a great, young, homegrown core. You can’t build that through free agency. Everyone panics because they won the world series in the first year with all those free agents, but it would be more troubling if they won in the fourth year with them. The Yankees have shown in the past, like when they passed on Beltran, that they do have limits. And in three years, when they’re likely to be paying A-Rod, Jeter, Sabathia, and Burnett a combined $80 million for no all-star production, they are going to have trouble.

        • caseyB 5 years ago

          “…but two of those guys are going to be wildly overpaid halfway”

          With the resources the Yankees have, they don’t care. They can just throw more money into the payroll to mitigate the drain and damage of a few huge underperforming contracts. In the meantime, they will have bought a few WS titles (if their GM is any good).

      • aap212 5 years ago

        If the Yankees want to give multiple years and mega money to a 31-year old with three years of good performance, that’s fine. Sure they won the first year they had Teixeira, Sabathia, and Burnett, but two of those guys are going to be wildly overpaid halfway through their contracts. You can’t actually buy a bunch of championships. It doesn’t work that way, and people are over-sensitive about it.

      • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

        As long as “biggest” doesn’t mean anything like “valid”, “sound”, or “good”, then yep; that’d be the biggest argument for getting a payroll cap.

        • j6takish 5 years ago

          In all fairness, AJ Burnett was overpaid the second he signed his name to the contract

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            I agree, but NYY disagreed and should be allowed to act on such disagreement.

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            I agree, but NYY disagreed and should be allowed to act on such disagreement.

          • Zack23 5 years ago

            Yet he has a better career FIP than John Lackey and Josh Beckett’s is 0.20 better.

          • Zack23 5 years ago

            Yet he has a better career FIP than John Lackey and Josh Beckett’s is 0.20 better.

        • caseyB 5 years ago

          In this case “biggest” does mean strongest, valid, sound, best, good — however you want to say it.

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            K well it wasn’t valid or sound, so not too sure about best & good. It’s a circular argument until you explain why a team shouldn’t be allowed to sign anyone they’re able to.

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            K well it wasn’t valid or sound, so not too sure about best & good. It’s a circular argument until you explain why a team shouldn’t be allowed to sign anyone they’re able to.

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            I think it was very valid and sound. We will have to agree to disagree. A team should be allowed to sign anyone they want — just so long as their payroll doesn’t outrageously tower over everyone else. Maybe you can explain why in a professional sport one team should be allowed to spend so much more than everyone else.

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            I don’t really have time atm to explain validity and soundness to you; try google. Your argument so far is circular because your conclusion — that teams should not be able to spend more than other teams — is also a premise. Premises need to be distinct from conclusions, because they are what prove conclusions. Do you see why? If not, while you’re googling, enter “begging the question”.

            “Maybe you can explain why in a professional sport one team should be allowed to spend so much more than everyone else.”

            I’d be delighted! A team should be able to spend more money than everyone else because it has the money to spend and is willing to spend it. Hope this helps.

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            I know what validity and soundness mean, thank you very much. And the ability to buy the top 3 starters to hit the free agent market in the last few years is an extremely valid reason for a salary cap. Just because a team can afford to do something doesn’t make it right. Why do you think the other big pro sports in this country have some sort of salary cap? Because they’re supposed to be “competitive team sports” – with the premise of a level playing field. One team being able to always “buy” the best players and bludgeon other teams with their payroll advantage is not a level playing field. I guess the only ones who believe it is and who like that sort of thing are the Yankees and their fans.

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            “Just because a team can afford to do something doesn’t make it right.”

            Yes, that’s exactly what it means until you prove otherwise. See?

            “they’re supposed to be “competitive team sports” – with the premise of a level playing field.”

            Level playing fields don’t exist anywhere in life. What is a good reason for trying to create an artificial one? Why shouldn’t lame, disinterested markets like Florida be outspent by larger ones? Why do you hate democracy and freedom =(

            “One team being able to always “buy” the best players and bludgeon other teams with their payroll advantage is not a level playing field. I guess the only ones who believe it is and who like that sort of thing are the Yankees and their fans. ”

            There goes that theory, cause I ain’t one. I’m a fan of markets though. And until you can explain why capping spending is a good idea, it isn’t a good idea. You aren’t even able to say that the Yankees payroll results in them dominating year after year. 2 years ago, they missed the playoffs. Before last year, they hadn’t won the WS in many years.

            Very few teams sustain dominance, even when they spend that much money. Your argument just goes round n round – “It’s not fair because it’s not fair!”

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            “Yes, that’s exactly what it means until you prove otherwise. See?”No, It does’t make it right. It’s legal but it doesn’t make it right.”Level playing fields don’t exist anywhere in life. What is a good reason for trying to create an artificial one? … Why do you hate democracy and freedom =(“Of course they exist (more or less). Why do you think there are all sorts of payroll caps in most of the major US sports? Why do you think there are anti-doping regulations for just about every major sport around the world? Sports is not politics or government so it is never going to be democracy, nor should it be. Your inability to distinguish between the two is your problem.”You aren’t even able to say that the Yankees payroll results in them dominating year after year.”That’s one of the biggest lapses in logic given by defenders of the current system. The point of an even playing field is to give everyone an equal opportunity to win — not to ensure any one team doesn’t dominate. “Domination” is a matter of degrees too. The Yankees were one of the most successful teams of the last decade in terms of winning percentage. Without their big payroll advantage, they may have been one of the worst. Doesn’t matter. They had a big advantage, win or lose. And that is the problem. Not necessarily the results or lack thereof from that advantage.”Very few teams sustain dominance, even when they spend that much money.”Again, it depends how you define it. The Yankees have been dominant over the last decade via a HUGE payroll advantage. “Your argument just goes round n round – “It’s not fair because it’s not fair!””LOL, I gave you the reason — a level playing field. If you’re too ignorant to see it, that’s your problem. It’s one thing to disagree about the value of a level playing field. It’s quite another to pretend the concept doesn’t exist or is elusive or somehow doesn’t apply to MLB. “Why shouldn’t lame, disinterested markets like Florida be outspent by larger ones?”Here’s a more relevant question — why should good, fervent markets like Minnesota and St. Louis be grossly outspent by much larger ones???

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            “Of course they exist (more or less).”

            In other words, they don’t. But different people or groups of people try to artificially create them because … they have weird opinions like yours!

            “Why do you think there are all sorts of payroll caps in most of the major US sports? Why do you think there are anti-doping regulations for just about every major sport around the world?”

            Because lots of people cling to the same broken unfinished arguments you are here. No level playing field exists and we LOVE that the field isn’t level. We don’t want people to be equally talented or perform equally well. Why would anyone watch that. It would be like rolling dice for sport. The LACK of equality is what makes competition excellent. The fact that other people agree with you and have made dumb rules about salary caps and steroids is not on its own evidence of anything really. Lots of dumb people.

            “The point of an even playing field is to give everyone an equal opportunity to win — not to ensure any one team doesn’t dominate.”

            Do you see why level playing fields are fiction? They are absolutely impossible? No one will ever have anything approximating an equal opportunity to win. Talent applies to management just as well as athletic ability. So does talent for marketing and making money. And spending it. Salary caps are retarded, SELECTIVE standards for “equality” amid a field of professions who are inherently unequal. And again, the inequality is what MAKES the whole thing fun. Do you see why?

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            “In other words, they don’t.”

            No, they do exist. It’s like justice. It’s never perfect but it exists and you always strive to make it better. That’s the same with an even playing field. You seem to talk so high and mighty about freedom and democracy. Well, using your silly logic, one could argue they don’t exist. But of course, they do. They’re just not perfect.

            “Because lots of people cling to the same broken unfinished arguments you are here. No level playing field exists and we LOVE that the field isn’t level.”

            Again, yes, they do exist. The playing fields in the NBA and the NFL are more even than they are in baseball. Are they perfect? Again, no. Nothing in life is perfect. But it’s a goal that is strived for and those sports are closer to it than MLB whose attempts have been feeble. Somewhat effective, but feeble.

            “We don’t want people to be equally talented or perform equally well.”

            No one is arguing for that. You are confusing the issues. Those who want equality in baseball want a level playing field — equal opportunity to the same talent pool.

            “The fact that other people agree with you and have made dumb rules about salary caps and steroids is not on its own evidence of anything really. Lots of dumb people.”

            At the very least, it is evidence that people disagree with your opinion and think it’s dumb.

            “Do you see why level playing fields are fiction?”

            No it is not. Just because you say it is doesn’t make it so. Talk about circular reasoning!

            Now answer that question about St. Louis and Minnesota.

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            Gonna reply down at the bottom because it’s getting waaay tooooo naaarroooow.

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            “Why should good, fervent markets like Minnesota and St. Louis be grossly outspent by much larger ones???”

            …Because much larger ones are willing to outspend them? You needed my help with that?

            Btw, “good” and “fervent” have nothing to do with anything when it comes to the spending of the team.

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            “…Because much larger ones are willing to outspend them?”

            Wrong. Let me help you with this one. The big markets do it because they can. It has very little to do with willingness. SL and MN are willing to spend but they can’t match the big markets. So it comes down to geography. Which shouldn’t be the basis for competition in sport.

            “Btw, “good” and “fervent” have nothing to do with anything when it comes to the spending of the team.”

            Actually they do to some extent. But they are not the overriding factors. Which just bolsters my point. Which is geography and market size plays a huge role.

            And let me get this straight … if you had it your way, you would do away with a PEDs ban, the luxury tax, and revenue sharing??????

            Wow, what team do you root for? If you weren’t here, I would say you weren’t a fan of baseball at all.

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            “Wrong. Let me help you with this one. The big markets do it because they can. It has very little to do with willingness.”

            lolwut. They are not willing to spend what they spend, you say. Sup2u contradiction guru. And if you’re gonna say “No, I am saying they only do it because they CAN”, well gee, are ya sure they don’t do it because they can’t?

            “SL and MN are willing to spend but they can’t match the big markets. So it comes down to geography. Which shouldn’t be the basis for competition in sport. ”

            Sounds like econ 101 to me. Comes down to money. Gotta have it to spend it. Not a new rule by any stretch. You keep forgetting to say what the problem is. Why SHOULD sports be any different? Why shouldn’t greater demand for talent result in greater allocation of talent? Why do you hate freedom =(

            “And let me get this straight … if you had it your way, you would do away with a PEDs ban, the luxury tax, and revenue sharing?????? Wow, If you weren’t here, I would say you weren’t a fan of baseball at all. ”

            That’s correct. These are all dumb and bad things and baseball is worse because they exist. It is hilarious that you would question my love for the game though based on my distaste for rules that have nothing whatever to do with it. Funny guy!

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            “They are not willing to spend what they spend, you say. Sup2u contradiction guru.”

            Huh? I think you have reading comprehension issues. I never said that.

            “Sounds like econ 101 to me.”

            But pro sport isn’t supposed to be based on pure economics. That’s the thing you either don’t understand, or, if you do, you just keep bringing it up along with “freedom” (LOL) anyway for some silly reason.

            “You keep forgetting to say what the problem is.”

            No, I’ve said it multiple times already. You don’t want to see it. That’s your problem.

            “These are all dumb and bad things and baseball is worse because they exist. It is hilarious that you would question my love for the game”

            Yes I do question your love for the game. Though I admit, it you didn’t like it you probably wouldn’t be here. So just lets say I think your position is truly moronic. While my position may be a little extreme, yours is even more so. And at least, thank god, baseball is closer to my vision today than yours. You are truly in a very tiny minority. May it forever remain that way.

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            One more thing — what team do you root for? Too afraid to say?

        • caseyB 5 years ago

          In this case “biggest” does mean strongest, valid, sound, best, good — however you want to say it.

      • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

        As long as “biggest” doesn’t mean anything like “valid”, “sound”, or “good”, then yep; that’d be the biggest argument for getting a payroll cap.

  2. jammin502 5 years ago

    The Cubs have a lot of depth at pitching, but maybe not in left handed relief. If they plan to keep him there and maybe rid themselves of Grabow, then I can see this move; otherwise, at this point, look into what you can get!

  3. Jason_F 5 years ago

    The Pittsburgh lineup is one that should help Big Time Timmy Jim right the ship.

  4. i bet the rockies could find 3 farmhands to surrender to the d-backs for dan haren. not the mariners i hear theyre looking for farm bats. if the rockies aquire dan haren then they will the the subject of the NL

  5. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    @CaseyB You are profoundly confused about abstract issues like “justice” and “equality”, so I will try to help get this back on track by just cutting to the heart of the issue:

    Explaining to you that equality (“levelness”) is not desirable, I said, for example: “We don’t want people to be equally talented or perform equally well.”

    You replied: “No one is arguing for that. You are confusing the issues. Those who want equality in baseball want a level playing field — equal opportunity to the same talent pool.”

    Welp. Equal opportunity to spend already exists! Problem solved then! Hoorah!

    But it isn’t, is it. Because you’re still whining. Because you want equal ABILITY to spend, not equal opportunity. Shucks.

    So the analogy I introduced fits perfectly after all, and you don’t even understand what you want, let alone why you want it. See why I told you to google things the first time? =P

    • caseyB 5 years ago

      LOL, you know very well there is no “equal opportunity to the same talent pool.” Your trying to play semantics is pretty sad and a sure sign you know you’ve lost the argument. Nothing you’ve said makes sense for baseball. As I said above, you are in the tiny minority. It’s a good thing the likes of you don’t run the game as it would be ruined right now — with perhaps 20 teams all confined to major cities and full of roided up players that look like Barry Bonds. Now tell me, what team do you root for.

      • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

        “pro sport isn’t supposed to be based on pure economics.”

        Do tell. What’s it “supposed” to be based on? Lemme guess! A level playing field?!?! YOUR ARGUMENT IS NOT CIRCULAR NOOO SIR

        There is absolute equal opportunity for the same talent pool. No one is prevented by anyone from signing free agents. What you are bothered by is that not every team has an equal ABILITY. Just go ahead and say it. Your ultimate argument will still be circular, but at least you’ll be internally consistent.

        Opportunity is very obviously not the same as ability; this is clear in every other context and you know it sillyface.

        • caseyB 5 years ago

          If anyone is circular it’s you. Or maybe you just like being repetitive. But whatever, you are totally wholly wrong. And playing semantical games is no substitute for your lack of logic and sense.

          Sport is supposed to be played on a level playing field. Which is why the NBA and NFL have salary caps and almost every pro sport around the world has PEDs bans. Your inability to grasp this speaks of someone who is either very dense or just too arrogant to admit he has lost an argument.

          Finally, “sillyface?” LOL, you need to look in the mirror after such a comical choice of words. You act and sound like a 12-year-old. Too bratty and immature to admit your errors. Weird.

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            Ok then, sillyface, let’s recap! “Sport is SUPPOSED to be played on a level playing field.” Me: Why?”Because some sports like the NFL and NBA try to create a level playing field.”Me: …Well everyone knows that. But why do you they do?”Because sport is supposed to be played on a level playing field!!!!!”Me: …Dude. I heard you. But WHY are they “supposed” to be played that way?”Because some sports like the NFL and NBA try to create a level playing field.”Me: Dude. Got it. But WHY?”Because sport is supposed to be played on a level playing field!!!!!”Me: Am I in the twilight zone. You are just saying the same things over and over. WHY?”Because if sports aren’t played on a level playing field, it is unfair.”Me: Sigh. WHY is it unfair?”BECAUSE SPORT IS SUPPOSED TO BE PLAYED ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD YOU DOLT LOL R U 12 UR LOGICZ ARE BAD YOU ARE CIRCULAR AND U LOST THIS ARGUMENT DO YOU EVEN LIKE BASEBALL LOL”Me: ……

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            Sorry, jr. You really do need to brush up on your reading skills. You’ve got my position all wrong. And if you can really read, I guess this is just another tactic of yours — to make up the other person’s line of argument. Either way, it’s quite sad. But try again. I’ll come back later and see if you’ve got it straight. If you do, then we can proceed.

    • caseyB 5 years ago

      Forget it. I shouldn’t have even asked. I think it’s clear you root for a large market team. A very large market team. Probably the Red Sox. No wonder why you want the status quo — and even a more uneven playing field than exists now. That’s sad. It’s a cheap way to win.

      • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

        I grew up around Boston and like them. These days most of my attention — and my money — ends up going to the Rangers, Astros, and Dbacks.

        And had you been listening, you’d know that I DON’T want the status quo. I just don’t want your radicalized weirdo version of it either because it would be much worse.

        Your “love of the game” is mostly a love of tradition, not baseball itself. Salary caps and all that have nothing to do with baseball; they concern business. If baseball’s tradition were anything better than a history of slowly corrected assbackward mistakes interfering with the game, I’d be with you on that.

        Instead, I’ll stick to loving the game of baseball itself, and continue to loathe busybodies like you who think they know how to manage markets better than markets themselves and enforce “fairness” based on some undefined unsupportable presupposition of what fairness even means.

        • caseyB 5 years ago

          If you could read and pay attention for a second, you’d know I didn’t exactly say you wanted the status quo — “a more uneven playing field than exists now” implies change, you dolt. The only bizarro version of sport advocated here is yours. Again you are in a tiny minority with your views. And you don’t get to define why I love baseball. I love it because of the game, the competition on the field. It’s too bad that competition can’t be more perfect with a more level field. A salary cap of some sort could go a long way toward making that field more level, and hence the game more perfect. You don’t love baseball. You love cheating and fraud. That’s an ugly vision of baseball. And I’m glad no one who runs the game agrees with your gross image of the game. I don’t loathe you, I feel sorry for you for being so unenlightened and uninformed.

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            “I love it because of the game, the competition on the field. It’s too bad that competition can’t be more perfect with a more level field.”

            If perfect competition is what does it for you, why don’t you just roll dice at home? Do you want someone else to roll dice and let you watch? How about team dice rolling? Perfect competition blows and is boring and you actually do know this, you just don’t know that you know it. You think perfect competition means something else. My advice is to read books.

            “You don’t love baseball. You love cheating and fraud.”

            lolled

          • caseyB 5 years ago

            You wouldn’t know “perfect” competition if it hit you in the face. That’s so apparent by now. Your vision of baseball is a nightmare.

            LMAO

Leave a Reply