Offseason baseball Thread

Yet it was the Cardinals and Giants who had deals in place before the Yankees.

 

They may end up flipping Castro for more prospects and shed more payroll.

 

Also teams with more money than the Marlins. The Marlins dealt away their best asset for payroll relief.

 

In 3 years Cashman turned Brendan Ryan into Starlin Castro into Giancarlo Stanton

 

All he had to do was add lots and lots of cash.

 

Fortunately for Cashman, that's what he's got. I know you have a big market fetish, but consider another Yankee advantage. The Steinbrenner kids inherited an asset worth over a billion that dear old Dad bought for $12 million. The ownership group in Miami paid contemporary prices. They doubtless have serious debt service expenses. That's a handicap. In fact, the club the Yanks share their big market with, the Mets, has never really recovered from the impact of Bernie Madoff. The capital market is a bigger factor IMO than the media market.

 

If you have fetishes related to baseball, good for you. Not my thing.

I do have a preference for sports that offer a level playing field, something other major sports do better than baseball. Everything in your post fits nicely into my overall argument.

 

People who go into debt for a big purchase have to make payments. Inherited wealth is an advantage in life. Falling for a con artist makes you poorer. I don't think these facts are limited only to baseball team owners.

 

Agreed, and this does anything but support my argument how? These differences do exist among owners in other sports. Those sports do a better job of making sure it doesn't slant the playing field, especially the NFL.

 

The NFL does a good job of holding down player wages to make owners richer. That's it. It has perennially good teams and perennially bad ones just like baseball does. When the Btowns make the Super Bowl, get to me about competitive balance and not before then.

 

All sports have consistent winners and consistent losers, but that is where you miss the point. It's okay. You made a mistake that is quite common around here. You failed to understand that a level playing field and competitive balance are related, but they are not the same thing. The Browns are consistently horrible because they have been horribly run since their return. Money isn't the issue. There is no built-in disadvantage holding them back. They earned their consistent failure.

The Patriots don't win because there is some built-in advantage. They do it with a balance of skill, brains and luck, as it should be. The same is true of other consistent contenders. They can't just buy the talent they need. Sure, they spent this year, but that was because they did a good job controlling their payroll in previous years and that allowed the to splurge a bit this past offseason. Brady's approach certainly helps, but that isn't a built-in advantage they have over the Browns.

The NFL has a level playing field, or at least a much more level playing field than what is offered by MLB. That doesn't always mean competitive balance. I have no issue with teams dominating because they are smarter or luckier than everybody else. Sports is built around rewarding excellence. I don't want everybody to be 8-8 or 81-81. I want everybody to have the same chance to succeed. That is where the NFL does a far better job than baseball.

 

I want everybody to have the same chance to succeed. That is where the NFL does a far better job than baseball.

I don't disagree with you. Yet somehow baseball seems to have a far more diverse cast of champions than the NFL. Five years ago the Astros were the Browns.