|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Oct 21st, 2004 03:30 PM | ||
| El Blanco | Oh, it would be awesome if Clemens comes back and wins the deciding game. Even I would have to acknowledge the existence of this retarded curse Red Sucks fans keep crying about. | |
| Oct 21st, 2004 11:56 AM | ||
| glowbelly |
yup. unless it's houston. :P |
|
| Oct 21st, 2004 11:52 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | So with that logic, you'll all be cheering for the winner of the NLCS, right? | |
| Oct 21st, 2004 12:11 AM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
YYYYYYEEEEEEEEHHHHHHAAAAAWWWWWWW!!!!! Sorry had to root for the underdog. I'm so happy I could pee on myself right now. |
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 11:56 PM | ||
| glowbelly |
and we have a winner :D sorry, kev. i really feel bad for you, i do 
|
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 11:47 PM | ||
| El Blanco | It pisses me off that a team like the giants is going to have to settle for a wild card at best, but Atlanta can fal lass backwards into a division win because the other teams are so shitty. | |
| Oct 20th, 2004 11:36 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
The Giants are at least 4-1.
|
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 11:34 PM | ||
| sspadowsky |
I'd like to state for the record that I  glowbelly. The fact that someone, ANYONE, on this board besides myself, let alone a woman (it's hard enough to find 'em on the intarweb, let alone talking about sports), will speak about baseball with passion and intelligence, is a nice feeling.The argument for the payroll could go either way, but, most of the time, it is the really big spenders that get to the big prize. And I love when the big spenders lose to the underdogs. While the BoSox may not be considered underdogs under ordinary circumstances, they are by virtue of being down 3-0 and coming back to beat the shit out of the Yankees. In game 7. At Yankee Stadium. Go Cardinals, Go Sox. The WS is gonna be a hell of a showdown. |
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 11:20 PM | ||
| glowbelly |
ps again (FUCKING EDIT): the red sox ARE the underdogs tonight. not because they have a smaller payroll, but because they were down 3 games to none. no team has ever come back to win before and the sox are 1.5 innings away from making that happen. |
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 11:19 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Look at the core of every Yankees team that has won it over the last few years. The Yankees mastered the balance of homegrown talent and purchased power. Granted, THIS particular team is the furthest from that formula, but the fact that they're about to lose in the ALCS, if anything, proves you wrong. | |
| Oct 20th, 2004 11:18 PM | ||
| glowbelly | kev, i'm not saying that the sox are exempt from the moolah thing...i KNOW that they have the second highest payroll in baseball. i KNOW manny ramirez makes more dough than a-rod does. i'm just saying that it's naive to think that payrolls don't play a role in the success of a baseball team. | |
| Oct 20th, 2004 11:16 PM | ||
| glowbelly |
hon, it's really cute for you to think that the only reason the yankees win is because they have great team chemistry, but i'm inclined to think that if they cut everyone's salary in half, none of them would stay and the team would suck. just my opinion, of course. as for the willing vs. able part, i don't know. a-rod's contract is HUGE. that's a lot of risk to take on one player and they probably thought that they had already taken that risk by STEALING MANNY RAMIREZ FROM CLEVELAND   thanks for the conversation, though. i forgot just how much i like baseball. |
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 11:15 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Calling the Red Sox "the underdog" is like calling Joe Frazier "the underdog." Again, Boston is a big market team, and if they close it out tonight, they'll have done it with purchased talent (Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, Manny Ramirez, etc.). This isn't some sand lot team, this is cash money millionares. | |
| Oct 20th, 2004 11:11 PM | ||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
When he mentioned paycut, the player's union stepped in. And the yankees had WS titles well before salaries got out of hand. Going back to the days when players were indentured servants. |
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 10:53 PM | ||
| glowbelly |
i'm well aware of soriano going to texas. thankee very mooch. my point is boston couldn't afford, or perhaps wasn't willing to dish out, the dough for a-rod. the yankess could and did. the marlins? don't talk to me about them in 1997 they beat the indians in the world series and then came in DEAD LAST in the national league the VERY NEXT YEAR. why? because they had to cut their payroll, which if i'm not mistaken, was one of the highest in baseball at the time. of course i rooted for them in 2003  again, the underdog thing.
|
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 09:56 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
And fuck the mother fucking red sox.
|
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 09:56 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 07:51 PM | ||
| El Blanco |
I think the Marlins and Angels have proven you wrong. And if you look at the Yankees during their World Series run, you'll notice that their core players either joined the Yankees when they were young, or came up through the Yankee farm system. Team chemistry is huge. |
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 07:22 PM | ||
| glowbelly |
team chemistry my ass when the average salary per player on your team is 6.3 million dollars a year (with one guy on each team making 22 million a year), it's not about team chemistry anymore. there are only 2 teams whose salaries are significantly above 100,000,000. those two teams are playing tonight. i'm just rooting for the underdog. i have to. i'm from cleveland.
|
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 07:05 PM | ||
| El Blanco |
That merely proves what a role team chemistry plays. I can name plenty of teams that throw money at players and can't win. Also, the owner of the Marlins is actually much richer than the owner of the Yankees. Its not so much that teams like the Yankthese and Red Sucks have more money, its that they are more willing to spend it. And the A-Rod trade was blocked by the MLB Player's Union. |
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 06:50 PM | ||
| glowbelly |
sorry if this ends up as a double post, but i used 2003 numbers because that's all i could find at first. i looked up 2004 numbers, and while the red sox's payroll is significantly higher than last years, the yankees is also higher and still 31% bigger than the sox. also, the two national league teams in the playoffs? their payrolls are less than HALF of what the yankees payroll is. |
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 06:41 PM | ||
| glowbelly |
yankess payroll: 180,322,403 (2003) red sox payroll: 104,873,607 (2003) difference: 75,448,796 which is more than the total payroll for 14 major league teams (again, in 2003). i don't see how anyone can see this as fair, or as the two teams being on the same level financially. boston was willing to TRADE to get a-rod, but would have had to lower his salary and therefore the trade was blocked. new york bought him, plain and simple. so, go red sox. break the curse, along with the idea that a team can't come back from being 3 games behind. |
|
| Oct 20th, 2004 03:59 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | bingo. And the Red Sox aren't the Florida Marlins or the Twins. This is another big baseball market with deep pockets. They wanted A-Rod first, and were willing to trade the kitchen sink to get him, so lets not line this team up for sainthood quite yet.... | |
| Oct 20th, 2004 01:23 PM | ||
| El Blanco | The reason the Yankees seem to have bottomless pockets is because their owner group is willing to put their own personal fortunes into the team's payroll. Most other owners refuse to do that. | |
| Oct 20th, 2004 10:11 AM | ||
| ziggytrix | Fuck your baseball and fuck your apple pie. | |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
