now that we know which 2 teams are gonna be in the WS, i thought it'd be interesting to revisit this discussion. the NFL, NBA and NHL have salary caps, and baseball doesn't.

Last champions:
NFL- Patriots v. Giants
NHL- Red Wings vs. Penguins
NBA- Celtics v. Lakers

When i look at that i see the basically the same teams who have been there either in short term history or long term. In baseball however we have the Phillies v. Rays. The phils last went to the WS in 1993 and the Rays haven't made it in their short history.

The only reason the Pats aren't gonna go the SB this year is because of Brady's injury. The celtics and lakers have a great chance for a rematch and the Red Wings bolstered their team with marian hossa in the offseason, i think.

Should baseball finally start getting some praise?

Short answer you are wrong.

Longer answer:

The Giants won the Superbowl for the first time since 1990, they have made it one other time since then, its flat out wrong to say that they are the team that is always there, in fact, they are 8 games under .500 since 1990 (not including their 5 wins so far this season). The patriots are a legit dynasty, they are the exception, not the rule. AND their old, slow defense would have prevented them from making the superbowl even if Brady didnt get hurt.

I dont follow hockey at all, but I do believe that Detroit is one of the teams that are there every year and I am pretty sure that Pittsburgh made the finals for the first time since 1991 last season.

The NBA, I believe we have discussed this before and I know you dont agree with me but it is great players and not necessarily great teams that win in that league, and therefore parity (yeah you used the wrong word, Parody is a literary device) isnt really even possible, atleast using your criteria. Just look at these stats; since 1998, only 2 teams not featuring Shaq or Tim Duncan has won a championship, going back to 1992; only 4 teams not featuring Shaq, Duncan or Michael Jordan has won a championship (and two of those championships of course are the Houston Rockets featuring Hakeem Olajuwan while Jordan retired to play baseball). We can go back even further still, to 1983 when the sixers won with Moses Malone, since 1983 only 6 championships have been won by teams without players named Bird, Johnson, Jordan, Shaq or Tim Duncan. The two non bird/magic teams that won between 83 and 90 was the bad boy pistons featuring another all time great in Isaiah Thomas. So really there hasnt been Parity in the NBA since 1983.

Before we move on to baseball, I have one more point to bring up regarding the NFL, 16 different teams out of a possible 20 have made the superbowl in the past 10 years. I would say that still points to parity as well. I could probably go further but I doubt anyone is going to read all of this anyways.

And now we come to baseball. Prior to this year the Yankees made the playoffs every season since 1995. The Boston Redsox have made the playoffs every year since 2003, the angels have missed the playoffs just twice since 2002. The National league does indeed show more parity, but I think it is important to analyze the other side of the equation as well. Kansas City hasnt made the playoffs since 1985 (1985!) and they have won more than 85 games just once since then (92 wins in 1989). The Toronto Blue Jays havent made the playoffs since 1993 and neither have they finished better than 3rd place once since then. My Orioles havent made the playoffs since the 1997 season and havent won more than 80 games at all since then. As I mentioned previosly there is more parity in the NL but there are teams like Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals who have made the playoffs just once (1981)in their nearly 40 year history (though they were the best team in baseball when the strike cut the '94 season short). As I continue, Pittsburgh hasnt made the playoffs since 1992 and Cincinnati hasnt been since 1995.

It is clear that out of the 3 sports I have discussed (I dont know enough about hockey) the NFL clearly has the most parity, just look at the NFC south as a microcosm, a team has gone from worst to first in that league every year since the realignment in 2002. I think baseball has a lot more parity than people give it credit for but it has a long ways to go before it gets to the NFL. The NBA simply doesnt belong in this discussion as I said before great players more so than great teams win in that league, parity cant logically be discussed.

Terpy Wrote:Before we move on to baseball, I have won more point to bring up regarding the NFL, 16 different teams out of a possible 20 have made the superbowl in the past 10 years. I would say that still points to parity as well. I could probably go further but I doubt anyone is going to read all of this anyways.

How can you compare playoffs when one league lets in half the teams and the other league lets in 1/4 of the teams? Of course you're going to have teams with shorter playoff droughts when half the league gets in...

When is the last time the Lions or Cardinals made the playoffs?

The cards made it 3 or 4 years ago, didn't they? The Lions haven't in a while, you can blame a lot of that on Matt Millen.

I am with Terpy, baseball is still a game of the haves or have nots. You will always see the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Angels (big market teams) competing for a playoff spot because they have the money to sign big name players in the off season and to make a trade during the season, adding significant payroll. Teams like my beloved Reds cannot do that.

I think baseball lies with the big markets also. I was just disputing how he compared the 2 leagues...

mlb Wrote:Teams like my beloved Reds cannot do that.

really? didn't they just spend about $50 mil on a closer? They don't need to spend tons of money to be successful. they need to learn how to manage a team.

Terpy Wrote:Short answer you are wrong.

Longer answer:

The Giants won the Superbowl for the first time since 1990, they have made it one other time since then, its flat out wrong to say that they are the team that is always there, in fact, they are 8 games under .500 since 1990 (not including their 5 wins so far this season). The patriots are a legit dynasty, they are the exception, not the rule. AND their old, slow defense would have prevented them from making the superbowl even if Brady didnt get hurt.

I dont follow hockey at all, but I do believe that Detroit is one of the teams that are there every year and I am pretty sure that Pittsburgh made the finals for the first time since 1991 last season.

The NBA, I believe we have discussed this before and I know you dont agree with me but it is great players and not necessarily great teams that win in that league, and therefore parity (yeah you used the wrong word, Parody is a literary device) isnt really even possible, atleast using your criteria. Just look at these stats; since 1998, only 2 teams not featuring Shaq or Tim Duncan has won a championship, going back to 1992; only 4 teams not featuring Shaq, Duncan or Michael Jordan has won a championship (and two of those championships of course are the Houston Rockets featuring Hakeem Olajuwan while Jordan retired to play baseball). We can go back even further still, to 1983 when the sixers won with Moses Malone, since 1983 only 6 championships have been won by teams without players named Bird, Johnson, Jordan, Shaq or Tim Duncan. The two non bird/magic teams that won between 83 and 90 was the bad boy pistons featuring another all time great in Isaiah Thomas. So really there hasnt been Parity in the NBA since 1983.

Before we move on to baseball, I have won more point to bring up regarding the NFL, 16 different teams out of a possible 20 have made the superbowl in the past 10 years. I would say that still points to parity as well. I could probably go further but I doubt anyone is going to read all of this anyways.

And now we come to baseball. Prior to this year the Yankees made the playoffs every season since 1995. The Boston Redsox have made the playoffs every year since 2003, the angels have missed the playoffs just twice since 2002. The National league does indeed show more parity, but I think it is important to analyze the other side of the equation as well. Kansas City hasnt made the playoffs since 1985 (1985!) and they have won more than 85 games just once since then (92 wins in 1989). The Toronto Blue Jays havent made the playoffs since 1993 and neither have they finished better than 3rd place once since then. My Orioles havent made the playoffs since the 1997 season and havent won more than 80 games at all since then. As I mentioned previosly there is more parody in the NL but there are teams like Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals who have made the playoffs just once (1981)in their nearly 40 year history (though they were the best team in baseball when the strike cut the '94 season short). As I continue, Pittsburgh hasnt made the playoffs since 1992 and Cincinnati hasnt been since 1995.

It is clear that out of the 3 sports I have discussed (I dont know enough about hockey) the NFL clearly has the most parity, just look at the NFC south as a microcosm, a team has gone from worst to first in that league every year since the realignment in 2002. I think baseball has a lot more parity than people give it credit for but it has a long ways to go before it gets to the NFL. The NBA simply doesnt belong in this discussion as I said before great players more so than great teams win in that league, parity cant logically be discussed.

i don't feel like writing a big response now, but i'll add that you're right, i do always misuse parody. Oddly though, you pointed it out and then misused it yourself when talking about the NL.

i also want to touh briefly on baseball. your orioles are getting better and will compete soon. They've got radhames liz, matt wieters and chris tillman (part of the raping of the mariners) all waiting to be great very soon. They also have money to spend and some good trade chips. The reason they haven't been very good isn't because the yankees and red sox have a lot of money, it's because they've done an incredibly poor job of building their team. Look at my giants; ownership has a ton of money, yet they've been a joke for the past 5 seasons. Then look at the brewers; they made the playoffs this season even though they have a lot less money than the giants.

The twins are an AL team, yet always compete because they're smart and they get a reasonable amount of revenue sharing. they're also about to move into a new stadium.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

mlb Wrote:Teams like my beloved Reds cannot do that.

really? didn't they just spend about $50 mil on a closer? They don't need to spend tons of money to be successful. they need to learn how to manage a team.

Look at their total payroll versus the big market teams.

The reds spend around $70M for this season. The Yankees and Red Sox were around or over $200M. You expect them to compete with those teams year in and year out? They can't keep big time players like Adam Dunn because of their cost, they are always replacing guys with young, inexperienced players because that is their best option.

Could the Reds have managed money better? No doubt. However, to expect them to compete year in and year out with teams spending 3-4x what they spend is ludacrus.

I grew up following the Reds above all else, now I hardly watch any games on TV and never go down to games. I don't feel the Reds have a legitimate chance to compete in today's major league baseball.

flyingswoosh Wrote:Then look at the brewers; they made the playoffs this season even though they have a lot less money than the giants.

They traded away a lot of young talent to the Indians this year for CC. They also are about to lose their other top pitcher. They will not be nearly as tough for the next several years while they have to rebuild.

Meanwhile, the big market teams will sign their big name players and immediately compete again.

Quote:The twins are an AL team, yet always compete because they're smart and they get a reasonable amount of revenue sharing. they're also about to move into a new stadium.

The Twins have been very good at drafting players. They still have not been in the World Series since Jack Morris and Kirby Pucket were in town.

There is a point that you guys are missing, parity has nothing to do with payroll. Payroll was not brought up by swoosh in his initial post and I didnt talk about payroll at all in my post. Teams like the twins and the A's compete every year with a relatively low payroll while the Mariners lost over 100 games this year with a payroll which I believe was in the 130 million range. Detroit also finished in last place with a payroll that I believe was the 3rd or 4th highest in baseball. Texas also generally has a pretty substantial payroll but never really competes in the AL West. Now im not going to make the argument that money has nothing to do with a teams ability to win because obviously it does but payroll and parity arent necessarily proportional, if that makes sense.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

Terpy Wrote:Short answer you are wrong.

Longer answer:

The Giants won the Superbowl for the first time since 1990, they have made it one other time since then, its flat out wrong to say that they are the team that is always there, in fact, they are 8 games under .500 since 1990 (not including their 5 wins so far this season). The patriots are a legit dynasty, they are the exception, not the rule. AND their old, slow defense would have prevented them from making the superbowl even if Brady didnt get hurt.

I dont follow hockey at all, but I do believe that Detroit is one of the teams that are there every year and I am pretty sure that Pittsburgh made the finals for the first time since 1991 last season.

The NBA, I believe we have discussed this before and I know you dont agree with me but it is great players and not necessarily great teams that win in that league, and therefore parity (yeah you used the wrong word, Parody is a literary device) isnt really even possible, atleast using your criteria. Just look at these stats; since 1998, only 2 teams not featuring Shaq or Tim Duncan has won a championship, going back to 1992; only 4 teams not featuring Shaq, Duncan or Michael Jordan has won a championship (and two of those championships of course are the Houston Rockets featuring Hakeem Olajuwan while Jordan retired to play baseball). We can go back even further still, to 1983 when the sixers won with Moses Malone, since 1983 only 6 championships have been won by teams without players named Bird, Johnson, Jordan, Shaq or Tim Duncan. The two non bird/magic teams that won between 83 and 90 was the bad boy pistons featuring another all time great in Isaiah Thomas. So really there hasnt been Parity in the NBA since 1983.

Before we move on to baseball, I have won more point to bring up regarding the NFL, 16 different teams out of a possible 20 have made the superbowl in the past 10 years. I would say that still points to parity as well. I could probably go further but I doubt anyone is going to read all of this anyways.

And now we come to baseball. Prior to this year the Yankees made the playoffs every season since 1995. The Boston Redsox have made the playoffs every year since 2003, the angels have missed the playoffs just twice since 2002. The National league does indeed show more parity, but I think it is important to analyze the other side of the equation as well. Kansas City hasnt made the playoffs since 1985 (1985!) and they have won more than 85 games just once since then (92 wins in 1989). The Toronto Blue Jays havent made the playoffs since 1993 and neither have they finished better than 3rd place once since then. My Orioles havent made the playoffs since the 1997 season and havent won more than 80 games at all since then. As I mentioned previosly there is more parody in the NL but there are teams like Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals who have made the playoffs just once (1981)in their nearly 40 year history (though they were the best team in baseball when the strike cut the '94 season short). As I continue, Pittsburgh hasnt made the playoffs since 1992 and Cincinnati hasnt been since 1995.

It is clear that out of the 3 sports I have discussed (I dont know enough about hockey) the NFL clearly has the most parity, just look at the NFC south as a microcosm, a team has gone from worst to first in that league every year since the realignment in 2002. I think baseball has a lot more parity than people give it credit for but it has a long ways to go before it gets to the NFL. The NBA simply doesnt belong in this discussion as I said before great players more so than great teams win in that league, parity cant logically be discussed.

i don't feel like writing a big response now, but i'll add that you're right, i do always misuse parody. Oddly though, you pointed it out and then misused it yourself when talking about the NL.

good catch, I guess thats what I get for not proofreading or maybe I was making a parody

either way im gonna edit it

jrhessey Wrote:

Terpy Wrote:Before we move on to baseball, I have won more point to bring up regarding the NFL, 16 different teams out of a possible 20 have made the superbowl in the past 10 years. I would say that still points to parity as well. I could probably go further but I doubt anyone is going to read all of this anyways.

How can you compare playoffs when one league lets in half the teams and the other league lets in 1/4 of the teams? Of course you're going to have teams with shorter playoff droughts when half the league gets in...

When is the last time the Lions or Cardinals made the playoffs?

That wasnt the point I was trying to make, I was merely trying to diffuse swoosh's assertion that the same handful of teams makes go to the superbowl every year.

Terpy Wrote:There is a point that you guys are missing, parity has nothing to do with payroll. Payroll was not brought up by swoosh in his initial post and I didnt talk about payroll at all in my post. Teams like the twins and the A's compete every year with a relatively low payroll while the Mariners lost over 100 games this year with a payroll which I believe was in the 130 million range. Detroit also finished in last place with a payroll that I believe was the 3rd or 4th highest in baseball. Texas also generally has a pretty substantial payroll but never really competes in the AL West. Now im not going to make the argument that money has nothing to do with a teams ability to win because obviously it does but payroll and parity arent necessarily proportional, if that makes sense.

There is no doubt that they have to be able to manage who gets their money, but having big money makes it infinitely easier to build a team. Most teams realize you have to have good pitching to win (Texas is the only team that does not seem to understand that). A good starting pitcher is commanding near $20M a year now. How many teams can afford to sign that in FA? About 5? Meanwhile the Reds have to draft and develop top pitchers (of which they haven't been very good) because they don't have the money to make up for their bad draft picks.

That is why I don't follow major league baseball much anymore. The Reds have no room for mistakes, the top 5 teams can have the worst farm systems in baseball but still compete every year thanks to the money they can spend in the offseason.

I think y'all are speaking of PARITY, and not PARODY. Somebody needs to learn English...

A PARODY is a sarcastic joke.

PARITY is when all things are fairly equal.

mlb Wrote:

Terpy Wrote:There is a point that you guys are missing, parity has nothing to do with payroll. Payroll was not brought up by swoosh in his initial post and I didnt talk about payroll at all in my post. Teams like the twins and the A's compete every year with a relatively low payroll while the Mariners lost over 100 games this year with a payroll which I believe was in the 130 million range. Detroit also finished in last place with a payroll that I believe was the 3rd or 4th highest in baseball. Texas also generally has a pretty substantial payroll but never really competes in the AL West. Now im not going to make the argument that money has nothing to do with a teams ability to win because obviously it does but payroll and parity arent necessarily proportional, if that makes sense.

There is no doubt that they have to be able to manage who gets their money, but having big money makes it infinitely easier to build a team. Most teams realize you have to have good pitching to win (Texas is the only team that does not seem to understand that). A good starting pitcher is commanding near $20M a year now. How many teams can afford to sign that in FA? About 5? Meanwhile the Reds have to draft and develop top pitchers (of which they haven't been very good) because they don't have the money to make up for their bad draft picks.

That is why I don't follow major league baseball much anymore. The Reds have no room for mistakes, the top 5 teams can have the worst farm systems in baseball but still compete every year thanks to the money they can spend in the offseason.

umm, no. the sox are winning because they HAVE a great farm system. pedroia, ellsbury, lester, beckett (traded their prospects), papelbon, masterson, delcarmen. You're crazy if you think big payroll teams with weak farm systems can win anything. The yankees were below their standards this year because their farm system didn't crank out any good players. Back in the 90's they'd win chapionships because of the system, not the money. You're deluded if you think otherwise.

Where has the Angels spending gotten them recently? early exits from the playoffs, that's where. When they beat us in 2002, it was because they developed great players: K-rod, lackey, salmon, molina, etc.

You're also crazy if you think a good SP costs close to 20 mil. What the hell is 'close' to you? There are only a couple pitchers who get anywhere near 20 and one of them is Zito, who stinks.

The reds can definitely afford to pay their players, they just choose not to. The reason they don't win has nothing to do with their inability to pay their players.

Let's look at the 4 teams who were in the LCS.
1) dodgers- great farm system- unfortunately for them, their GM's have wasted tons of money on worthless free agents. It hasn't helped, it's hurt
2) Phillies- Howard, Utley, Rollins, Victorino, Hamels. 5 of their top 6 most important players are all home grown. Burrell and Madson are also home grown. Their only expensive free agent is Lidge, who's getting less money than francisco cordero.
3) Red Sox- I mentioned their young guys earlier in the post. Let's not forget that they picked Big Papi off the scrap heap for less than a million bucks, a handful of years ago. They also got Derek Lowe and Jason Varitek from the mariners without spending money. it's called smart trading, which is something the Reds aren't used to, except for the volquez deal.
4) Rays- I don't think there's much to say.

How about we look at the other top teams in baseball.

Brewers- Braun, Hardy, Fielder, Sheets, Gallardo, Parra and Hart. They got Sabathia by trading away some important prospects. Sure, they can't afford both Sheets and Sabathia this offseason, but they can definitely afford Sheets by himself. If they would've traded for younger pitching, they would be in even better shape.

Mets- Wright, Reyes, Pelfrey, Maine (great trade), Perez (traded Nady who they got through another good trade). Yes, they've spent a lot of money on free agents, but where has that gotten them? Yes, they're paying a lot for santana, but they traded some really good prospects for him. I also believe most teams can afford santana, they just choose not to.

I could go on and on, but i think you get the picture. You also seem to forget that a starting pitcher can't command big time money until he's been in the league for 6 years. If the team signs the player as soon as he comes up, they can even avoid the arbitration years, which can get costly. You're only jaded because your Reds are kings at mismanagement.

This is fun, so let's break it down further and look at the bad teams and their similarities and differences.

1) Giants- One of the highest payroll's in baseball, yet they're one of the worst teams. Why is this? Well it's because up until this season their farm system has been ranked amongst the worst in baseball for a long time. They haven't developed a great position player since matt williams, nearly two decades ago! A clear case of mismanagement.

2) Royals- One of the lowest payrolls in baseballs, yet like the giants they're a joke. Could it have anything to do with the fact that they haven't developed a great player in a really long time? No, i think it's because they don't have any money to spend. Yeah, keep believing that last one. Would it be easier to build a great team if they had more money? Yes, but would it win them a WS? No. They probably wouldn't even win the division.

3) Padres- They used to have a decent payroll, but now their owner is slashing it down to the below average level. Does it make a difference? no, because their farm system consistently ranks in the bottom 10 of the league year in and year out. Other than peavy, who have they developed recently? Oliver Perez? Not exactly an ace. they've also been wasting money on an over the hill closer for the past few years. Not exactly the best way to build a team.

4) Rangers- They, like the giants, have plenty of money, they just don't know how to manage a team. They spent a ton of money on padilla and millwood, which definitely didn't pay off. The padilla move was an obvious stupid mistake. They also spent an obscene amount of money on chan ho-park, which everyone also knew was a terrible idea. They showed some signs of improvement this season because they actually decided to DEVELOP some players, not sign them. Michael Young, Ian Kinsler, Josh Hamilton (traded volquez), were all home grown or the result of drafting. They're actually smarter than the reds, because they decided to let cordero go instead of signing him to an obscene contract. Only stupid teams sign closers to big contracts. The only exceptions are joe nathan and mariano rivera.

I can keep going, but i'm sick and would rather lie down.

One last point, because of revenue sharing and MLB.com (worth a couple billion dollars), teams have plenty of money to spend. Don't let these owners fool you. They'd rather keep the revenue sharing than spend it.

bitcruncher Wrote:I think y'all are speaking of PARITY, and not PARODY. Somebody needs to learn English...

A PARODY is a sarcastic joke.

PARITY is when all things are fairly equal.

once again you should actually read the thread before you post

go back to ******* your sister

Fine, the money means nothing. All the more reason for the Yankees and Red Sox to give up their argument against a salary cap. Simple as can be, flyingswoosh.

Fans of every major league team will come flocking back the moment they feel as though their team has a legitimate shot every year. This will take care of it.

On a side note, I didn't say that the big market teams didn't develop some of their own players. What I said is that they can afford to bring in top level players to compliment what they have because they can afford to pay the $20M (or more) per year to bring in a big time starting pitcher. You can also add in guys like ARod, Manny, Johnny Damon, etc., which really help round out an offensive lineup.

But money means nothing, so like I said above, time for the yankees to drop their opposition and for all the owners to begin negotiating with the players to get the deal done. The perceived inequality only hurts baseball as a whole because half of the teams in the league pay $70M or below, and their fans don't think they have a shot to win.

mlb Wrote:Fine, the money means nothing. All the more reason for the Yankees and Red Sox to give up their argument against a salary cap. Simple as can be, flyingswoosh.

Fans of every major league team will come flocking back the moment they feel as though their team has a legitimate shot every year. This will take care of it.

On a side note, I didn't say that the big market teams didn't develop some of their own players. What I said is that they can afford to bring in top level players to compliment what they have because they can afford to pay the $20M (or more) per year to bring in a big time starting pitcher. You can also add in guys like ARod, Manny, Johnny Damon, etc., which really help round out an offensive lineup.

But money means nothing, so like I said above, time for the yankees to drop their opposition and for all the owners to begin negotiating with the players to get the deal done. The perceived inequality only hurts baseball as a whole because half of the teams in the league pay $70M or below, and their fans don't think they have a shot to win.

actually what you said was: "the top 5 teams can have the worst farm systems in baseball but still compete every year thanks to the money they can spend in the offseason." Those are your exact words and they're wrong. That can't happen.

Did you know there's only been one NL team that's made it to the WS twice in the past 10 years? It's the cardinals and they're definitely not a big market team. Arizona won a WS in 2000 and made it to the playoffs last year. They're also not a big market. You and all the other deluded fans are flat out wrong if you think your small-mid market team doesn't have a chance. Especially in the revenue sharing, mlb.com money getting and better scouting baseball of today. Money is no longer a big issue.

And one of the biggest arguments against a salary cap is because the cap is a good way of keeping teams down for a long time. There's only one sport where a bad contract can be dumped: baseball. If the Royals sign a guy to a bad deal, they're not necessarily saddled with it for the duration; they can trade the guy. In the NFL a bad contract can hinder the hell out of a team.

There's also way too many rules and loopholes with the salary cap. It's like the freakin' tax code. Getting rid of it makes things much simpler.

Oh and the reason the Reds didn't sign Dunn is because it would've been stupid. Would you sign Adam Dunn to a 5 yr/75 mil deal? Of course not, but the Yankees would and they'd once again be screwed.

The reason the A's haven't been good lately isn't because they can't afford to keep their players, it's because their recent drafts haven't yielded much of anything.

Terpy Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:I think y'all are speaking of PARITY, and not PARODY. Somebody needs to learn English...

A PARODY is a sarcastic joke.

PARITY is when all things are fairly equal.

once again you should actually read the thread before you post

go back to ******* your sister

It's been edited by the creator of the thread, or an administrator, since I made this post, moron...