EVIL~! alkeiper

Money.

Certainly, there is more turnover in the NFL, and teams can improve more quickly. But in the NFL, you have teams finishing 15-1, 14-2, and 13-3, while the worst teams finish 4-12, or worse. When an MLB team finishes 40-120, they're historically awful. When an NFL team finishes 4-12, its par for the course. In the NFL, if an awful team plays the Patroits, you're relatively sure the Pats will win. But on any given day, the Reds, or even the Devil Rays, can beat the Yankees. That's what I am saying here. The NFL has bad teams, they just change from year to year. As an aside, I have a hard time holding sympathy for a team that thinks $25 Million for Eric Milton is a good idea.

The current stadium is the Miami Dolphins.Miami Hurricanes facility. It's converted to baseball for the Marlins.

Ah, but bringing a sports team to a city adds prestige and value to the community, which leads to more people moving to the city, which equals more dollars for the city. I'm not saying that the city should foot the bill for the whole deal but, in principle, I think the city and the sports team should work together on a stadium deal. The city and county have already agreed to their own funding deals. This is just involving the state. The Marlins do have other funding they've arranged.

It's also worth noting that this team that needs to borrow $30 Million can somehow afford to offer Carlos Delgado a $36 Million contract.

Good for him. It's about time someone stood up to Loria and Samson. Scumbags. Seriously though, the Marlins need $2 Million a year? Maybe if they didn't waste $4 Million on Juan Encarnacion, they could afford it. Talk about penny pinching.

I meant to ask you about that. Forgive me for being under a rock on the subject, but when was the reserve clause in baseball that limited salaries? The reserve clause came into existence in September of 1879, after only Chicago's franchise made money. The reserve system started with five players, soon expanded to eleven (when clubs carried fifteen players), and after various battles with rival leagues such as the American Association and the Union Association competed for players, the system expanded to include all players. The system persisted for almost 100 years, until arbitrator Peter Seitz's decision invalidated the reserve system, in the Winter of 1975.

I decided to look over game logs. Since June 4 when Hawkins (I presume) inherited the closer role, the Cubs finished 38-10 in games that Hawkins pitched. Hawkins blew seven saves, and the Cubs won four of those games. Of the other three blown saves, one resulted in a Hawkins loss. Hawkins lost three more games in that span. That gives us six games in which Hawkins blew a lead and lost the game, or came in a tie game and lost. Six games sounds like a lot, right? Well, consider that all pitchers have their share of failures here and there. Looking at Hawkins' stat lines, he had a disasterous appearance against the Cardinals on July 20, giving up three runs in an 11-8 loss. Since then, he did not allow more than a single earned run THE REST OF THE SEASON. The Cubs lost three games in September in which Hawkins pitched. In the first one (9/7), Hawkins pitched two scoreless innings, and left with a tie game. No fault there. Then we have back to back blown saves in late September. One was the Victor Diaz/Mets game, and the other one was against the Reds. Both times, Hawkins allowed a single earned run to tie the game, but did not figure into the decision. Many things failed the Cubs during the five game losing streak the last week, but the fact is that the Cubs only got to Hawkins once during that span. The rest of the time, the fault lay elsewhere.

NBA's system sounds good in theory, but it is disasterous in practice. It discourages competitive balance by limiting player movement, making it difficult for a losing team to improve itself outside of the draft. It does not curb salaries, and in fact makes the system worse by ensuring the overpaid players are the wrong players. Players are overpaid because they represent their team's only option, rather than because of their pure level of talent.

From my experience, salary caps do little to promote competitive balance. The gap between good and bad teams is worse in the NFL and NBA, where there is a salary cap, and MLB, which has no salary cap. The problem as I see it is that a salary cap fixes costs, which sounds good for a while, but it eliminates the incentive for a team to improve its product. The Yankees' domination of payroll has its problems, but it has forced the rest of the league to adapt, and I truly believe it produces a better product. Another problem is that a salary cap pays players less than they are worth. I am sure many of you don't see a problem with that, but artificial restraints on salaries lead to other problems. In baseball, the luxury tax has not stopped the Yankees from spending, and in fact has only served to widen the gap. When the reserve clause limited player movement and salaries, the Yankees won by outspending other teams on amateur players. If MLB were to somehow institute a salary cap, the Jared Weaver/Scott Boras type demands for draft bonuses would increase to the point where only the Yankees could afford them. A cap sounds nice in theory, but given the problems they carry, and the difficulty in instituting them, I believe they are more trouble than they are worth.

Ultimately, Johnson may have set the color line back a generation with his antics. Not that it was wrong to do what he did, but the establishment was SEVERLY pissed at the time, and it was years before another black fighter earned an opportunity at a World Championship. But it took him how many years to finally get his world title shot? He pretty much got it because it was CLEAR he was the best, and everyone knew it. Was anyone else after him until Joe Louis as dominant as he was during his prime? I'd say no. Sam Langford, Joe Jeannette, Sam McVey, Harry Wills. ESPECIALLY Harry Wills, whom didn't earn a shot even after the New York State Athletic Commission refused to sanction a Jack Dempsey title fight, unless Wills was the challenger. Jackson didn't get a shot because he was the best. Jackson got a shot because a promoter offered Tommy Burns more money than Burns could refuse.

I let this go long enough for everyone to blow off steam. Now we're just talking past one another. Feel free to continue this in Hardcore Discussion.

Yes. The only problem is that first base is stocked with Thome, and if we keep Ryan Howard and Placido Polanco, I don't see the need.

Ultimately, Johnson may have set the color line back a generation with his antics. Not that it was wrong to do what he did, but the establishment was SEVERLY pissed at the time, and it was years before another black fighter earned an opportunity at a World Championship.

I'll throw Rube Foster's name out there. He was a black pitcher who basically got the Negro Leagues off and running. I agree with Ali, Louis, Owens, and Jackie Robinson. I'd also mention Tiger Woods, Satchel Paige, Buck O'Neill, and Hank Aaron.

They were the better team because they had better players. Otherwise, we could stop paying players millions and give it all to the coaches.

The Phillies signed IF Jose Offerman to a minor league contract. Yeah, its Offerman. But he sports a career .361 OBP, and posted a .363 mark last season. I won't mind seeing him in Scranton at all.

I am not saying you can't be a fan without living in the city. Heck, I live a good hour away from Philly. But it is insulting to hear someone put their stock in the Eagles, but go elsewhere when it comes to the Sixers, Phillies, or Flyers.

Jesus. People, JASON DUBOIS CAN PLAY.

The Cubs took a flier on Scott Williamson for a MLC. He probably won't pitch this season, but it will give them first negotiating rights for next year. The Nationals signed P Esteban Loazia, for one year, $2.9 Million.

The Wizards scored 80 points in the second half. Damn.

Did anyone else watch this? I thought it was fairly good. It concentrated more on social aspects than about boxing, particularly in part 2.

Remember that he was just 22 and 23 his first two years. He was set to improve, but he had an awful 2003.

Goose Gossage once went 9-17 in a full year as a starter.

I did.