Jump to content

Is anyone upset that a team just shelled out $1 billion???


DocJJ

Recommended Posts

It absolutely sucks. It's bad for the game. Part of why NFL and NbA are destroying MLB in growing their fan base is that every team has the same chance to win. That being said, the Dodgers contracts are just the latest example, not anything uniquely exciting. Some had suggested Shohei himself might get $1B due to his unicorn value as both pitcher and hitter. Definitely not going to let it ruin my holidays!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aristotelian said:

It absolutely sucks. It's bad for the game. Part of why NFL and NbA are destroying MLB in growing their fan base is that every team has the same chance to win. That being said, the Dodgers contracts are just the latest example, not anything uniquely exciting. Some had suggested Shohei himself might get $1B due to his unicorn value as both pitcher and hitter. Definitely not going to let it ruin my holidays!

You think the Wizards have the same chance to win as the Lakers, Celtics or Heat?

Do you follow the NBA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, E-D-D-I-E said:

Calling Ohtani the best player in the history of the game is laughable. 

Find one better.

I didn't say the most accomplished, I didn't say the mos records.  I just said the best.

If you can find someone better in the history of the game who can throw 100 mph fastballs and hit 450+ foot homers, I'd love to see it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You think the Wizards have the same chance to win as the Lakers, Celtics or Heat?

Do you follow the NBA?

The only way the Wizards have a chance to win an NBA title is if they stumble into someone in the draft like the Bucks did with Giannis.  That's the only way the Bucks have been able to win one recently, they got a guy in the draft (I think he was like the 14th overall pick) who was a bit of a project and absolutely no one had any idea of how good he'd turn out to be.  Despite picking him, Milwaukee still isn't a free agent destination for NBA players.  They traded for Jrue Holiday, then they traded him for Damian Lillard.  They drafted Middleton.  

Despite being one of the best teams in the East for the past few years, it's not a free agent destination.  

To think other sports have some sort of parity that the MLB lacks is laughable and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

It absolutely sucks. It's bad for the game. Part of why NFL and NbA are destroying MLB in growing their fan base is that every team has the same chance to win.  

Not really.  The NFL and the NBA are packed with action and excitement.  Let's not try to intellectualize something that doesn't require it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

None because they will not be on the Orioles roster.

How many more game do you think LAD will win when Ohtani and Yamamoto go on the IL?

I'm really confused here.

I know you understand what a hypothetical is, and that my post was one. Obviously Ohtani and Yamamoto won't play for the Orioles next year. Equally obviously, the Orioles would be a better team if they did.

Sure, LAD won't win more games if Ohtani and Yamamoto spend all or most of the year on the IL, but if I'm them I'm happy to take that chance. Most likely that won't happen and the upside is enormous.

You say talent matters and expensive payrolls don't. I agree that the O's shouldn't spend just to spend, but signing arguably the greatest active player and likely best FA pitcher isn't doing that.

Are we going to win a lot of games without signing those players? Most likely. But why not want your team to compete for the best talent in all areas? I get it if the option is choosing between being the Rays and the Yankees and deciding you want to be the underdog, but why not be both? Why not be the Dodgers?

If the Orioles truly aren't going to pursue top free agent talent, that doesn't mean they can't be a successful team. But that's going to make it harder for them, and I don't see the upside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SouthRider said:

You lose cred by including Texas in your rant.  The only reason they are included is because the Rangers spent like crazy and it worked out for them.  Other teams have tried the same approach (Padres, Phillies, Mets) and it didn't quite work.    It all depends on ownership.  Even the O's in 90's and Nats during their run spent near the top. 

Also, in the last 10 years there have been 9 different champions.  I think MLB is quite happy with that.  

 

Since the start of the 2001 season the Yankees have won a single World Series title even with consistently high payrolls. It takes more than expensive free agents or high priced trades to be a winner.

I’m most concerned with the Orioles owner who has already whined at the prospect of having to eventually pay Gunnar and Adley. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We keep coming back to the built-in dichotomy of full season vs. playoffs.

Take the perennial top spenders, the Dodgers and Yankees.

LA: Won WS, 2020. But they won their division 10 out of the last 11 years.

NY: Last WS, 2009. But they've made the playoffs every year but five since 1995 (24 out of 29 seasons).

Yes, they also produce homegrown talent (espec. LA, and NY of the late 90s). But their *full-season* success is largely attributable to their superior budget resources, year in and year out.

Playoffs? You just pay to play the lottery more often.

Edited by now
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Not really.  The NFL and the NBA are packed with action and excitement.  Let's not try to intellectualize something that doesn't require it.  

I said part of. They have other things going for them for sure. Impossible to prove but I believe the salary caps are good for the sports, not just the owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

The only way the Wizards have a chance to win an NBA title is if they stumble into someone in the draft like the Bucks did with Giannis.  That's the only way the Bucks have been able to win one recently, they got a guy in the draft (I think he was like the 14th overall pick) who was a bit of a project and absolutely no one had any idea of how good he'd turn out to be.  Despite picking him, Milwaukee still isn't a free agent destination for NBA players.  They traded for Jrue Holiday, then they traded him for Damian Lillard.  They drafted Middleton.  

Despite being one of the best teams in the East for the past few years, it's not a free agent destination.  

To think other sports have some sort of parity that the MLB lacks is laughable and wrong.

And they traded for Lillard because they know if Giannis gets unhappy he'll demand a trade, despite being under contract.

If that happens it will be to a select handful of teams Giannis approves up, which won't include the Wizards.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aristotelian said:

I said part of. They have other things going for them for sure. Impossible to prove but I believe the salary caps are good for the sports, not just the owners.

I don't think the cap is a great thing.  In any sport, really.

I grew up a Redskins fan in the 80s and 90s.  For me, there was comfort knowing that guys like Joe Jacoby and Darrell Green were going to be on the team, year in, year out.  Gary Clark, Art Monk, etc.  Those guys were Redskins for life (I'm aware Clark and Monk played elsewhere at the end of their careers).  

Nowadays, there's no guarantee that an NFL player will spend their entire career with a team, all because of the cap.  

Let's do a reverse.  Imagine if Cal Ripken were a cap casualty before 1990 or so and he broke Gehrig's record in a Red Sox uniform?  Imagine if there were a salary cap when Brooks was playing and he spent the second half of his career playing for some dumb team like the Mets or the Phillies?

The cap doesn't do anything to create ingenuity and create different ways to look at the game in order to keep competitive.  There's a reason the Rays have been able to own the Yankees over the past few years, it's because they're forced to live within the constraints of their budget and make their dollar go further.  And they're not applauded for it, either, which is odd.  People just want to whine about teams spending money because the odds are their team isn't doing it.  Look no further than this board.  Had Angelos spent a lot of money over the course of his ownership here, we'd be singing a different tune.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

And they traded for Lillard because they know if Giannis gets unhappy he'll demand a trade, despite being under contract.

If that happens it will be to a select handful of teams Giannis approves up, which won't include the Wizards.

That's right.  Of all the sports, the NBA is the biggest sham of them all.  All the top players are friendly, they get together to play USA basketball and figure out how to create superteams together.  It's borderline collusion and yet people think that there's some sort of parity to the NBA which is laughable.

I still watch the NBA but someone call me when the Wizards, Trail Blazers, Hornets or Grizzlies become a place where top free agents want to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

That's right.  Of all the sports, the NBA is the biggest sham of them all.  All the top players are friendly, they get together to play USA basketball and figure out how to create superteams together.  It's borderline collusion and yet people think that there's some sort of parity to the NBA which is laughable.

I still watch the NBA but someone call me when the Wizards, Trail Blazers, Hornets or Grizzlies become a place where top free agents want to go.

It's shocking how badly the Knicks are run that they can't become a destination spot for players.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...