ANGELS/DODGERS = YANKS/SOX minus all those rings?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: ANGELS/DODGERS = YANKS/SOX minus all those rings?

    I dont think its bad for baseball.  Every team is owned by a billionaire. Either blame the owners who dont spend to remain competitive or push for a salary cap.

    But dont blame owners who are willing to invest their own personal resources in an uncapped sport.  They are the ones spending their own money to compete.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Re: ANGELS/DODGERS = YANKS/SOX minus all those rings?

    the LA teams are ruining baseball! How can the rest of the league compete, its not fair!
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: ANGELS/DODGERS = YANKS/SOX minus all those rings?

    "I dont think its bad for baseball. "

    It's absolutely bad for baseball. One of the main reasons the NFL is more popular is because it has a much harder cap and franchises can compete much better for free agents. Meantime baseball ratings continue to go down. It's a serious issue. 

    Every team is owned by a billionaire.

    Doesn't mean they are all willing to lose money on their baseball operations. Some have lucrative major metro TV revenues and some smal market teams do not. Some, like Henry, are having a lot of financial issues outside of baseball holdings. Yes, some owners are cheap but the idea that all of baseball's problems come down to cheapskate owners is foolhardy. All pro sports have shown that you need a salary cap to get owners in line and to some extent save them from themselves. There should also be a "salary floor" that forces cheap owners to spend. 

    "Either blame the owners who dont spend to remain competitive or push for a salary cap."

    Selig has pushed for it, but the union is too powerful. The union would have to be broken which would require a mulit-year work stoppage baseball can't afford. 

    "But dont blame owners who are willing to invest their own personal resources in an uncapped sport.  They are the ones spending their own money to compete."

    I don't blame those owners but if you think this kind of thing is good for baseball you are out of your mind. All the TV ratings data is on my side of the argument.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: ANGELS/DODGERS = YANKS/SOX minus all those rings?

    I dont see the comparison. Yanks/Sox compete with each other in the same division, spending the money was necessary. The LA teams play each other 6 times a year, and part ways forever.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: ANGELS/DODGERS = YANKS/SOX minus all those rings?

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "I dont think its bad for baseball. "

    It's absolutely bad for baseball. One of the main reasons the NFL is more popular is because it has a much harder cap and franchises can compete much better for free agents. Meantime baseball ratings continue to go down. It's a serious issue. 

    Every team is owned by a billionaire.

    Doesn't mean they are all willing to lose money on their baseball operations. Some have lucrative major metro TV revenues and some smal market teams do not. Some, like Henry, are having a lot of financial issues outside of baseball holdings. Yes, some owners are cheap but the idea that all of baseball's problems come down to cheapskate owners is foolhardy. All pro sports have shown that you need a salary cap to get owners in line and to some extent save them from themselves. There should also be a "salary floor" that forces cheap owners to spend. 

    "Either blame the owners who dont spend to remain competitive or push for a salary cap."

    Selig has pushed for it, but the union is too powerful. The union would have to be broken which would require a mulit-year work stoppage baseball can't afford. 

    "But dont blame owners who are willing to invest their own personal resources in an uncapped sport.  They are the ones spending their own money to compete."

    I don't blame those owners but if you think this kind of thing is good for baseball you are out of your mind. All the TV ratings data is on my side of the argument.

    [/QUOTE]

    Stop guaranteed contracts in MLB and you will see this nonsense come to a screeching halt. Thats why it works better in the NFL, the nature of the sport prevents guaranteed contracts, but baseball would be better off without them too IMO. Good luck getting it past the mlbpa.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: ANGELS/DODGERS = YANKS/SOX minus all those rings?

    In response to louisthelipp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I dont see the comparison. Yanks/Sox compete with each other in the same division, spending the money was necessary. The LA teams play each other 6 times a year, and part ways forever.

    [/QUOTE]


    And the end-all is winning your Division? Most on this forum claim that a Division title is worthless and the only thing that matters is the WS trophy. They consider the RS to be total failures unless they get the trophy and rings.

    [/QUOTE]

    Which has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. The point is you have to keep pace with NYY Even if you dont finish above them. If you can do that, you can handle the others more often than not. Compared with the LA teams that have little relationship to one another on the field.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: ANGELS/DODGERS = YANKS/SOX minus all those rings?

    In response to COMMIE-CONTRARIAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I dont see the comparison. Yanks/Sox compete with each other in the same division, spending the money was necessary. The LA teams play each other 6 times a year, and part ways forever.

    [/QUOTE]
    in some ways its worse.. imagine if we had the cape cod braves to comete against us in the national league.. your neighborhood makes it even more intense.. talking livelihood not just vanity of the division. win or lose against the yanks, fenway still sells out (on paper anyways).. wont be the case if there were another team in the neighborhood. angels had to respond! if no dodgers, no need for hamilton. t-i-t for tat baby.. its good for BASEBALLLL! SOMEone else to rally against.. the new cowboys and pats for others if u will.. plus yanks/sox will still be interesting. imagine how much eyes the dodgers/angels will get? like brooklyn nets and knicks in basketball  

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, maybe from a fiscal standpoint, but I see NYY/Sox as an on field battle that spills over onto the fans as a secondary factor. In LA its a fan rivalry that sometimes finds its way onto the field. If they meet in the WS, then that could be a different story.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: ANGELS/DODGERS = YANKS/SOX minus all those rings?

    But the Angels lost three pitchers from the last year starting rotation.  Remember pitching and defense along with clutch hitting win WS!!  Angels may have the best offense in MLb but lack depth in their starting rotation.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: ANGELS/DODGERS = YANKS/SOX minus all those rings?

    Both the Angels and Dodgers still need to play with great chemistry. 

    If I recall, the 2012 AL West Champs were the $50 million-payroll, Oakland A's and the 2012 World Series Champs were the Giants. 

     

Share