MLB Discussion

[catalinacaper]

Mike Minor is absolutely dealing

[catalinacaper]

Where's your champagne now you fucks?

 

You truly are a representation of the Boston sports fan base man...

[chamb117]

I don't think pitching is defense, pitching is pitching, which wins championships

i get it, but pitching certainly isn't offense, so it's easily categorized as a component of defense along with fielding

 

Yeah... I know everyone here seems to unconditionally hate the Braves but they had the best rotation & bullpen statistically in baseball.

 

i mean, yeah, depending on how you frame it... the pirates pen gave up a lower BA and OPS, and the braves' starting ERA was 3.51. the dodgers had a 3.25 team ERA but a 3.49 bullpen ERA... i can't find how many innings the bullpen threw but their starters' ERA is probably closer to 3.1 or something. rarely would i care about the "veteran presence" but i think having a healthy hudson for game 1 could have been crucial. at least minor is holding his own in game 2

[catalinacaper]

So has anyone else read about the lawsuit A-Rod is trying to drop on MLB for "destroying the reputation of one of the greatest players to ever play the game"? It's like he wants you to hate him.

[KennyFuckingPowers]

Welp no Harvey next season. There goes all the hope I had for the playoffs. Ugh. I love you Matt. 

[KennyFuckingPowers]

Bullllllllllllshit Gordon was out. However that gif of the reaction will be awesome

[catalinacaper]

It was pretty damn close. You can't tell me you could differentiate touching his pants and just grazing above them in real time like that. Simmons continues to amaze me with his ability to disguise things with his glove work.

[lemongoat]

Every time in the post season in my life time, The A's have a gaff that costs them; not touching home, getting in a bar fight before a game, stopping after rounding third because you assume interference, dropped fly ball, fly ball lost in the sun.

 

Tonight, Daric Barton WHO IS ONLY IN FOR DEFENSE lets a routine ground ball roll under his glove, scoring what was ultimately the game winning run. I texted a friend 3 hours before the game "My vote for postseason gaff this year is Daric Barton"

 

During the regular season, I'm king of positivity. The playoffs just make me cynical and bitter and fucking hate life because they do this same fucking shit every time.

[Guest]

You truly are a representation of the Boston sports fan base man...

 

why, because i hate a fraud of a franchise who has been celebrating every day this past week as if they've done something?

look what happens when they get matched up with a real team. 

[thebiglebowski]

Eat it Bartolo Hormone

[converge88]

why, because i hate a fraud of a franchise who has been celebrating every day this past week as if they've done something?

look what happens when they get matched up with a real team.

why in the hell do you care if they celebrate a big win for them....I just don't get why that would make you so upset. Kinda silly

[crime]

why, because i hate a fraud of a franchise who has been celebrating every day this past week as if they've done something?

look what happens when they get matched up with a real team. 

 

They have done something you fucking idiot.  They came through in the clutch to win three games to make it to the ALDS.  They (as a team) have done more in the past week then you'll do in your entire life.

 

And this is coming from a Sox fan.

[lemongoat]

Eat it Bartolo Hormone

 

Buy Fielder. Buy Martinez. Buy Sanchez. Buy Hunter. Trade for FA to be Miguel Cabrera, extend him. Buy Benoit.

 

Must be nice.

[catalinacaper]

So much negativity haha, then again, every time they pan to Magic Johnson in the braves series I want to punch him for creating another Yankees pay-for-wins team. If they resign Kershaw to (what 150-200 mill at this point) their payroll will be 5 times the league average. Who can root for a team like that..

[lemongoat]

So much negativity haha, then again, every time they pan to Magic Johnson in the braves series I want to punch him for creating another Yankees pay-for-wins team. If they resign Kershaw to (what 150-200 mill at this point) their payroll will be 5 times the league average. Who can root for a team like that..

 

Kershaw is probably going to get 250-300mil

 

But exactly. How is that fun? "I can't wait until small market teams build superstars that we can buy away when they enter free agency"

 

I would like the A's to have enough money to retain their own. Or considering that lately they have traded players after 3 years of service, at least be able to retain players through arbitration. Going out and buying $25million players would not be interesting to me.

[thebiglebowski]

Buy Fielder. Buy Martinez. Buy Sanchez. Buy Hunter. Trade for FA to be Miguel Cabrera, extend him. Buy Benoit.

 

Must be nice.

 

Trade for Scherzer, trade for Jackson, trade for Infante, trade for Fister. Develop Smyly. Develop some OK complementary players in Dirks, Avila (bat is streaky but runs an incredible game behind the plate), and Porcello. JV is home grown and we kept him around.

 

Yeah, our payroll is high and I LOVE that our owner runs this team for basically no profit to try and win a championship. Don't make it sound like we are the evil empire, though. Shrewd trades and good FA deals (the Fielder deal might be crippling down the line but we are living in the moment). We don't develop much but you give up draft picks to sign free agents and we trade our prospects away for better players. Supposed to be apologetic about that?

 

And when other teams dole out monster contracts over the years to guys like A-Rod, Pujols, Dunn, Werth, etc.. we bet on Miguel Cabrera. Gotta give the Tigers credit for that, even if they paid to get him.

 

We run our team down the middle between big and small market style. If Oakland is forced into small market baseball, I understand their gripes about the big boys. I don't feel the tiniest little loss of interest in our team because we bought some of our players cause that is part of the game today.

[Guest]

It's so easy to get you guys worked up sometimes

[lemongoat]

Trade for Scherzer, trade for Jackson, trade for Infante, trade for Fister. Develop Smyly. Develop some OK complementary players in Dirks, Avila (bat is streaky but runs an incredible game behind the plate), and Porcello. JV is home grown and we kept him around.

 

Yeah, our payroll is high and I LOVE that our owner runs this team for basically no profit to try and win a championship. Don't make it sound like we are the evil empire, though. Shrewd trades and good FA deals (the Fielder deal might be crippling down the line but we are living in the moment). We don't develop much but you give up draft picks to sign free agents and we trade our prospects away for better players. Supposed to be apologetic about that?

 

And when other teams dole out monster contracts over the years to guys like A-Rod, Pujols, Dunn, Werth, etc.. we bet on Miguel Cabrera. Gotta give the Tigers credit for that, even if they paid to get him.

 

We run our team down the middle between big and small market style. If Oakland is forced into small market baseball, I understand their gripes about the big boys. I don't feel the tiniest little loss of interest in our team because we bought some of our players cause that is part of the game today.

 

Other than Scherzer, you listed a bunch of complimentary players. Of course The Tigers didn't sign everyone as FA's...only like 6 of their top 7 players. Whereas Oakland has traded for: Donaldson, Norris, Sogard, Vogt, Reddick, Anderson, Parker, Cook, Callaspo, Lowrie, Smith, Blevins, Otero, Suzuki, Barton, Young. Drafted Gray, Straily, Doolittle. Picked off the scrap heap Moss and Chavez. Only Balfour, Cespedes, Crisp and Colon were signed as FA's.

 

Is Detroit equal to New York or Boston? No, of course not. But between 2000 and 2005, the payroll ranged from $46-$69 mil and they averaged about 65 wins. In 2006 it was $82 mil and has increased all the way to $148 mil this season. They've averaged 90 wins in that time span. It's 5th highest in baseball this season.

 

Mostly, I'm irritated at The A's wetting the bed in the postseason, so don't mind me. A high payroll doesn't guarantee success; all those big signings have worked out for the most part, which is pretty unheard of. So hats off to that. 

[Guest]

Regardless of payroll, Oakland is just Red Sox part 2

[lemongoat]

Tonight the A' next ace introduces himself to America. 

 

Be positive!

[thebiglebowski]

Other than Scherzer, you listed a bunch of complimentary players. Of course The Tigers didn't sign everyone as FA's...only like 6 of their top 7 players. Whereas Oakland has traded for: Donaldson, Norris, Sogard, Vogt, Reddick, Anderson, Parker, Cook, Callaspo, Lowrie, Smith, Blevins, Otero, Suzuki, Barton, Young. Drafted Gray, Straily, Doolittle. Picked off the scrap heap Moss and Chavez. Only Balfour, Cespedes, Crisp and Colon were signed as FA's.

Is Detroit equal to New York or Boston? No, of course not. But between 2000 and 2005, the payroll ranged from $46-$69 mil and they averaged about 65 wins. In 2006 it was $82 mil and has increased all the way to $148 mil this season. They've averaged 90 wins in that time span. It's 5th highest in baseball this season.

Mostly, I'm irritated at The A's wetting the bed in the postseason, so don't mind me. A high payroll doesn't guarantee success; all those big signings have worked out for the most part, which is pretty unheard of. So hats off to that.

I don't know what your definition on a complementary player is but for me, it's a player that fills his job but you would replace if you could. Jackson, infante, and Fister would be starters on any team in baseball that didn't have them blocked with all-stars. Arguably Smyly too, if you consider the lefty reliever a "must have" position. Call them whatever you want. They aren't guys you are trying to replace if you could though (outside of the idea that you would take the all-star team if money wasn't an issue).

And I don't see what 10 years ago has to do with this team. They were a really, really bad team. The A's were really bad for most of 90s and very mediocre for about 5 years leading up to the last 2. It's not like they always make the playoffs despite their payroll. They go in streaks too.

Props to Oakland for doing it with a small payroll (along with Pitt and the best small ball team of the last decade or so, the Rays) but eff em in this series.

[lemongoat]

I don't know what your definition on a complementary player is but for me, it's a player that fills his job but you would replace if you could. Jackson, infante, and Fister would be starters on any team in baseball that didn't have them blocked with all-stars. Arguably Smyly too, if you consider the lefty reliever a "must have" position. Call them whatever you want. They aren't guys you are trying to replace if you could though (outside of the idea that you would take the all-star team if money wasn't an issue).

And I don't see what 10 years ago has to do with this team. They were a really, really bad team. The A's were really bad for most of 90s and very mediocre for about 5 years leading up to the last 2. It's not like they always make the playoffs despite their payroll. They go in streaks too.

Props to Oakland for doing it with a small payroll (along with Pitt and the best small ball team of the last decade or so, the Rays) but eff em in this series.

 

Jackson would compliment Cabrera, Fister would compliment Verlander. Solid-to-good players that are not stars I would call complimentary. Just my take, not like there is a definition.

 

What 10 years ago has to do with my point is that they couldn't win the way The A's are forced to win.

[Guest]

Also, and not to harp on a troll-laden conversation, but I simply can't buy into the whole "but the rays won 3 straight win or go home games". Sure they did, but if they didn't, then the rangers or Indians would have. It's nothing more than surviving. Reminds me of Chris rock- "you're SUPPOSED to take care of your child!"

I'm just not scared of Tampa in the slightest. What I am scared of, however, is the possibility of them pulling it out and how badly it would hurt.

[thebiglebowski]

 

What 10 years ago has to do with my point is that they couldn't win the way The A's are forced to win.

I guess my point would be that they have averaged 81 wins over the last 7 years (admittedly I cherry-picked the 7 year number but it's still fact). .500 ball with an average to below average payroll. Why would you bring down the Tiger's for 2000 but laude the A's when they have only been good recently for 2 years out of 7? If you look at it this way, aren't they just an average organization but happen to be on a high note at the moment?

Also that you can throw just about any AAA team out there 162 times and they will win 50 games (see the Houston Astros). It's fairly easy to win 70ish games with any real MLB team. It's totally unfair to look at a $60 million payroll vs. a $150 million dollar payroll in isolation and compare their management. There is significant diminishing returns in the amount of wins you get for each dollar the more you spend, even if you are spending that money as shrewdly as possible. There's how many high draft picks you have. There's injuries to big players. And there is by far more luck in baseball than any other sport.

The only thing I think it is fair to say is that you expect a team with $150 million to be there every year (doesn't always happen) and a team with $60 million dollar payroll to go through cycles of winning and rebuilding. And that's pretty much how it has gone over the last decade across all the teams, Tiger's and A's included.

[lemongoat]

I guess my point would be that they have averaged 81 wins over the last 7 years (admittedly I cherry-picked the 7 year number but it's still fact). .500 ball with an average to below average payroll. Why would you bring down the Tiger's for 2000 but laude the A's when they have only been good recently for 2 years out of 7? If you look at it this way, aren't they just an average organization but happen to be on a high note at the moment?

 

 

It's nearly impossible to a below-average to super-below-average payroll team to sustain success. Tampa Bay is an extreme and amazing case that itself will not last forever.

 

Without looking up exact numbers, I would assume that since Beane's team first found success in 1999, The A's have at the very least been top 3 in fewest dollars spent per win. While The Tigers never really had success with budget constraints and had to start spending before they became a perennial playoff contender.