Which system is better: NFL or Baseball

For the record, the Royals traded away Johnny Damon, Carlos Beltran and Jermaine Dye, which is still the best outfield I've ever seen. They also let a reasonably priced Randa go -- twice.

Say what you want, but the Royals have simply not produced good prospects. Mike MacDougal might have been the best pitching prospect in the last 15 years or so. And they pretty much have no one on the roster now who came up through the farm system all the way to Kansas City. Compare that to the Twins, Tigers, Athletics, etc., then you would see where the Royals have simply gone wrong in management.

It can be done. You just have to be smart. And fetch more in return for stars when you do trade them. Like the Twins did for A.J. (Nathan and Liriano have turned out pretty well, I think.)

 

First of all, I'm sorry to Garner for lumping him in with BostonCeltz (you know you're hip when you use a Z instead of an S). I honestly didn't mean to do so. We just disagree, no big deal.

And here I go again:

Hoooboy.

Dye--Having an unexpected resurgence. You think the A's should have re-signed him after two poor seasons when it appeared he'd never recover from that broken leg? Really?
Damon--Had four great years with the Red Sox. But Mark Kotsay hasn't been chopped liver.
Mulder--You're not one of those dolts who measures a player by the amount of wins he collects, are you? Also, you may have heard he's been awful this year and has a bad arm. That would not be a good long-term investment, would it? Meanwhile, one of hte guys the A's got for him, Dan Haren, is one of the better pitchers in the AL.
Hudson--Again: Have you seen his stats since he signed a long-term deal with the Braves? Do you really think that guy, with his build and the wear and tear in his rearview mirror, is a good long-term bet?
Tejada--He's so good the Orioles can't get rid of him fast enough. Can't wait to see that Grimsley deposition!
Randa--Now I know you're joking.
Beltran--He's putting up nice numbers, now that he's a complimentary piece again. Do you think it's a good idea to pay $120 million for a guy who can't stomach being The Man?
Ibanez--Having the best years of his life and beating the odds at ages 32-34. Run the numbers and tell us if it's a good idea team to invest long-term in a previously fringe big leaguer who didn't break out until his 30s. The exception proves the norm.
Hernandez--Check out his splits and see how he's wore down since a sizzling start. Then tell us if it's a good idea to invest four years in a catcher who is nearing 30.
Lidle--Now I know you're joking, part 2. A team with a good farm system should spend big money to sign a no. 5 starter long-term? Wait to see how he folds in NY.
Isringhausen--Yeah, he's had a killer year. Sure was a good idea for the Cards to go four years on a guy who, I believe, leads the league in blown saves.
Foulke--Hey, how's he done since the World Series? How much have the Sox paid a pitcher who has been hurt, ineffective and surly since the start of 2005?

You really think their former teams have been ruined by these guys leaving? Really? Truly?

Thanks for playing. Shoo.

 

I bent my Wookie.

 

It all comes down to management.

In baseball, it's much less finances that matter than it is management. Yeah, finances come into play, when you're the Yankees and you can afford to give a huge deal to Carl Pavano because even if it doesn't work out, you can eat the salary with little reprecussions. But at the same time, keep making decisions like that, and the team won't win the World Series. And I think we can all agree, with the (perhaps forced due to some of the results from the big money moves) re-emphasis on building from within. Cano, Wang, Phillips, Cabrera -- they might not all be possible of being centerpieces on a championship team, but they're all players that can be important players on a championship team.

Look at the Tigers. They go through Randy Smith years, and the effect of the Smith era, and they're not close to competitive. Then in comes Dombrowski, they make savvy draft picks and trades, have a development system that feeds the prospects successfully into the majors, sign an important free agent or two who fits, and they're ready to coast into the playoffs and most likely win 100 games.

Look at the Mets. The Wilpons get their hands into the stew and muck stuff up, the team goes through a down period. The Kazmir trade happens, its a PR and on-the-field debacle, then they seem to get less involved, bring in Omar and give him some autonomy, and the team's on its way back to the playoffs.

The Marlins, they bring in high-priced veterans but smartly, and they win the World Series in 97. They build from within, and win a World Series in 2003. The Dodgers go from being competitive year-in-year-out with one of the best farm systems in baseball to sputtering and making the playoffs once in nine years with Kevin Malone and the Rupert group in charge. The downfall of the Orioles in the late 90s. The Phillies having supposedly a strong farm system, but what seems to be weak development that can't deliver players like Duckworth and Floyd into the majors as stars. You can go on and on. The Royals can get a Carlos Beltran and a Johnny Damon, but they couldn't get many other good major leaguers developed over that same time.

The difference between the Royals and playoff caliber teams in baseball isn't tens of millions on free agents; it's millions on scouting and development. Seems to me, that's not smart business.

But in football, there isn't really much of a penalty for running and organization poorly. The Browns haven't been paragons of smart management since they came back, but they made the playoffs in 2000 riding Kelly Holcombe, not exactly the guy who was supposed to. The Vikings haven't been anyone's example of the best organization in the NFL, and they won a playoff game two years ago. Hell, even the Cardinals won a playoff game, and they're one of the most poorly run organizations in professional sports.

Yes, well-run organizations in the NFL succeed. But ones that aren't run well don't categorically fail.

The reasons for the NFL have been covered pretty thoroughly by EN above me. Granted, the hope of teams in each of the 32 NFL cities does account for some of its popularity. But it's a very small piece of the puzzle. And that each team has hope speaks to the random chance that comes into play a thousand times more in the NFL than it does in baseball. To me, chance dictating what happens during a season too much isn't what I want.

I'd like one where there's more of a correlation between decisions, good or bad, and performance, good or bad.

 

I'm sure Kansas City would be alot better if it had an outfield of Dye, Beltran, and Damon. Instead, the Royals fanbase (what's left of it anyway) has to watch that pathetic team full of unfamiliar faces and mediocre talents, with all of their renowned ex-players competing and succeeding with other franchises.

Just ain't fair to me. KC should have had a chance to resign 'em.

 

They did. David Glass runs WalMart. He has the money. He'd rather run his team like he runs WalMart.

And hey, the NFL just ain't fair to me. I'm sure the colts would be alot better if it had Peyton Manning, Edgerrin James and Marvin Harrison. Just ain't faire to me. Indy should have had a chance to resign 'em.

 

You must have missed my post -- Kansas City traded each of them away. In fact, Dye said he wanted to stay in KC, that he would take a hometown discount. They traded him, anyway.

KC has produced next to no pitching prospects the last 15 years. The Royals can't afford that and expect to win games, which is where Dayton Moore (new GM) comes in. He's stocking the organization with arms from the five trades he's made already. And he seems committed to the farm system as a whole, which is what any smart franchise needs to do in order to win consistently.

 

I'm talking from a fan's perspective: it's not fair that the OFs weren't locked up. Glass is stingy and apparently doesn't care about his franchise, but it's really the everyday fan who is suffering with no payroll.

The situation is different, but still, the Colts lost one player, while the Royals lost all three. Plus, they overpayed big time for Peyton and knew they couldn't afford James with the handful of emerging stars on defense. But the Colts will be able to resign a good portion of their free agents, while the Royals certainly cannot do that.

 

The hard salary cap is the bane of the NFL salary system and the key to why its financial system is flawed. You are forcibly put into positions to break up great teams. Only on-the-ball and lucky organizations can overcome the prevations of the hard cap. As a Packer fan, a greater accomplishment than anything Favre did on the field, was the Packers ability to maintain stability from 1992-2004, that's amazing in the cap era.

Finances can force break up of baseball teams, Marlins '97 and '03 being prime examples, but decent management can overcome that. And I think its fair to say that Marlins ownership in either of those years was not making decisions in the interest of competitiveness. The Oakland A's are a great example of what smart management can mean to a team. Hell, even my Brewers, who operated without a clue in the decade-plus after the Harry Dalton era, are getting better.

The NBA does some stupid shit, but I still think their soft cap system and the cap exemption to sign home-grown players is the best one out there, though I'm sure Knicks' fans would disagree!  

 

While the Royals had to be realists about it ... THE ROYALS TRADED ALL THREE!!! THEY DIDN'T LOSE THEM, THEY TRADED THEM AWAY!!!

Damn.

 

David Glass has decided that he doesn't want spend the money necessary to run a competitive MLB franchise. And somehow the Royals sucking is the fault of MLB's financial system? I sense a disconnect here...someone has divorced themselves from logic.

 

Yes, they traded the trio away, but it was because the orginization couldn't afford to pay them in the relativly immediate future, am I right?

Dye is probably the worst example, since he just emerged this season. But Beltran was the face of the Royals for awhile, but no way they could have kept him when he hit the market. Not with his talent. And not when they had already locked up Sweeney some years back. (Note: Glass obviously could afford it, but never would shell out the dough)