Moon, you got way too much time on your hands man. This research proves exactly what? It took them a decade to get into the position they are in now.
Try since 2008.
"Now" meaning the winning trend that developed in 2008, not right this very minute.
Fair enough, but now to me doesn't usually mean 5 years up to now.
This class organization sucked for so long it would have been nearly impossible not to improve with all the top draft picks they got.
Look at other teams who have been bottom feeders for over a decade. Yes, some have improved, but most of them have higher payrolls. Several are still at the bottom, so I don't buy the "impossible" label.
I said "nearly" impossible, not impossible. Meaning, yes, they hve shown an ability to scout effectively. More than that, they have hit more often than not, and the law of averages dictates this will not continue indefinitely.
If they have good scouting, why would the "law of averages" catch up to them? Wouldn't one assume they will continue to scout and obtain diamonds in the rough as well as great returns on trades?
Especially when you consider that eventually there will be more Sam Fulds than Evan Longorias.
I totally disagree. They just picked up Myers, Odorizzi, and Montgomery from KC. They also have Moore, Cobb and Archer. Jennings, H-J Lee, and many other ML ready or near ML ready young players that rate to be much better than Fuld. Fuld isn't even a starter.
Fuld not being a starter proves what Im trying to say.
The, I don't get what you are saying. Fuld was a throw in a much larger deal that netted the rays several starters or starters-to-be.
They have not been on an arc for 5 years. They have been steady. They have been trading star players during these 5 years and not missed a beat. They did not do this by signing big-named FAs. They did it by signing low cost FAs that have performed well, and by bringing up players they traded for years ago. That does not seem to be ending. Like I said, they still have young players from previous trades about ready to fill the gaps of the next players traded or lost to free agency. There appears no end in sight.
No end in sight? Really? I dont see it moon. And where do you get this five years thing? The "steady" is the arc Im talking about. In order to stay up where they have been, theyve had to hit mostly home runs on their trades and picks, and this cant continue.
They haven't hit HRs on picks in a long time. They have rebuilt through trades of stars for several prospects that keep feeding into the big club. The Shields trade just happened and already promises to improve the team for the next 5 years at least. Not just with Myers.
What Im saying is there is no way they can maintain having players like Price and keep them with the money they have. And, you cant keep trading off proven veterans and keep expecting to jump from Joe Montana to Steve Young every single time. Just the law of averages alone would dictate that they are going to miss more than hit on future prospects because of the hits theyve already gotten.
Like you said, they have good scouting- mostly in the minors, not college or HS. The Shields trade is going to help them a lot. Yes, maybe they may miss on one here or there, but they seem to have enough starting pitchers to keep them up there for at least 5 years. They didn't even have Niemann this year.
If a batter is hitting .500 at the end of May, do we assume he will be there at the end of Sepetember? And just what end "isnt in sight"? The end of being a regular season nuisnace that never wins it all because they cant afford to have the full compliment of players you need to pull it off? If the end of that isnt in sight, theyre welcomed to it. Again, show me the hardware, show me the championship result of all this brilliance and plucky, underdog fortitude.
Mt opoint was they will remain about a 90 win team for many years. I never said they will ever be the very best, but with starting pitchers like they have, any year could be that magic year.
No, it isn't even close to that. Socialism does not take wealth from others and give it to someone else. It does not "re" distribute wealth. Even Communism isn't supposed to be about "re"distribution, although that has happened several times. Here's Webster...
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
It says nothing about taking existing wealth and redistributing it. Baseball is a unique business. Teams need other teams to exist. Burger King does not need McDonalds to stay in business. Two teams need to be on the field at all times. Two teams are being watched on TV. Much of that revenue is not shared as a Capitalistic model would suggest it should be. Imagine if the Rolling Stones only got paid if they played in England, but were forced to play in other countries. If they did receive money for playing in NY, would that be Socialism? Revenue sharing in MLB does not even come close to giving small market teams their fair share of the pie. Local TV contract money are not shared with the opposing team directly. Who do you know who does something that millions of peaople pay to watch and doesn't make a penny? Revenue sharing is perhaps just a fraction of what is really fair.
That Webster's definition is all fine and good, but the PRACTICAL application of that is the government controling business and wealth so that they can RE-DISTRIBUTE IT as they see fit, even if it means putting in their own pockets. Just what do you think "governmental ownership" means, and what is its intended end and practical application? Redistribution of wealth (and by extension power and control) is the goal, definitions like that are the means its made more palatable and reasonable so people will vote for it. But since the "book definition" doesnt mention redistribution of wealth, Im sure the powers that be would NEVER use it to that end. I mean, Socialism and Communism have always worked so well, why not stick with the book definitions? "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." That is Socialism, and all the fancy definitions arent going to cover it.
Your digging a deeper hole. I'm going to choose to stick with baseball.
Now, is it fair that some teams get this revenue and don't spend it on payroll or lowering ticket prices? That's a different issue all together. (I think they changed the rules about teams needing to spend revenue sharing on player payroll, or you lose it, but I may be wrong on this.)
Now THIS I agree with Moon, but the beauty of my position is that I can hate the Rays and pull against them. In order for you to be right, they have to beat the Red Sox, or at least beat someone and continue to be a nuisance perpetually. So if they beat us in the PS, you can come on here and say "I told you so" while you cry in the beverage of your choice about the Sox.
I am the biggest Sox fan on the planet. No ifs ands or buts. Just because I respect the rays, does not make me any less of a Sox fan. If we beat the Rays in the playoffs, I will not be surprised. We are better than them. We should beat them. My biggest worry is maybe having to face Moore and price 4 times. We stink against lefties, and those two are 2 of the best.
I will not gloat if the Rays win, becasue I do not think they will win a ring this year. I can't gloat over something I did not call. My "not fade away" comment is only about them staying competitive for the season and many to come.