Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Cheech Tremendous

The 2008 MLB Offseason Thread

Recommended Posts

They shouldn't take away draft picks to begin with. That's stupid.

 

Why? Shouldn't smaller market teams get at least _some_ concessions to remain competitive, or should they just be feeder teams for the big market clubs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I would advocate a system where once you no longer have a 1st or 2nd round pick to give then you just can't sign anymore Type A free agents.

I like this idea a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...that's a nice thought, but...well, there are a lot of people unhappy about how this off-season is going right now. It's not just a few lowly Brewers fans whining. A lot of people don't like it, and now that we're in the middle of a recession, the chickens may come home to roost sooner than anyone thinks...maybe even the almighty Yankees.

 

I don't know...I think it would be nice for other teams to have at least somewhat of a realistic chance to sign some of the top talent. The current system basically does not allow for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's because I'm from New York, and root for a team that spends a little bit of money, but I've never felt sorry for these small market teams. If a team has the ability and wants to spend the money, there should be nothing standing in their way to prevent that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, it's apples and oranges. Of course if you're a Yankees fan, you're going to love all these moves. Any fan would love to see their team sign three of the biggest free agents in one off-season.

 

Edit: Oh, but let's be honest...$400 million on three guys isn't "a little bit of money."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather have Pedroia over Tex any day.

 

:lol:

Rookie of the Year √

MVP √

 

Pedroia had a better average (only by .7), more stolen bases, more doubles/triples, more runs and less strikeouts. Teixeira had a better FPCT (only by .4), a better RF (but he is at 1B, so of course he will have a higher RF), more HRs, higher slugging, more walks and more RBIs. Granted, they are two different players. Teixeira is a power hitter while Pedroia is not. But, I'd rather take Pedroia's stats any day.

 

Plus Pedroia cost $140 million less than Tex and is 3 years younger.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, it's apples and oranges. Of course if you're a Yankees fan, you're going to love all these moves. Any fan would love to see their team sign three of the biggest free agents in one off-season.

 

Edit: Oh, but let's be honest...$400 million on three guys isn't "a little bit of money."

 

I hate the Yankees

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Yankees have all the right in the world to spend all that money. Hell the Red Sox had the 4th highest payroll in baseball and I love it when they spend money. Though that number will dip since Manny is gone and they haven't thrown any money at anyone this year yet.

 

The Sox just need another starting pitcher. All they really have are Beckett, Lester, Dice-K. Buchholz scares me when he is out there, Wakefield doesn't have much gas left in him (though you are guaranteed at least 10-12 wins with him ever year) and I'm not sure if Bowden is ready yet. They need to keep Masterson in the pen as a 7-8th inning guy (that is if Okajima sucks again).

 

I'd say go after Derek Lowe for 4 years and Smoltz for 1. That way Tito will have 7 starters he can use (which he does anyway) and bring in Bowden slowly for 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason the Yankees just made baseball into a joke to the mainstream media is how they were asking New York City for money for their stadiums, the Mets included as well. Then they overspend the fuck out of their pockets, so it makes it seem bush league for a top brand in pro sports to "pull the wool" over people's eyes. Honestly, I never expected them to sign all of those free agents, but at the same time, they're still not a team unless they have chemistry. Something all of those Yanks teams of the past had. There hasn't been team chemistry in Yankee Stadium since 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's a good thing that they're spending money on free agents instead of just pocketing the money.

 

Those late 90s, 2000 teams had a bunch of players they acquired through trades and free agency (O'Neill, Martinez, Brosius, Davis, Strawberry, Curtis, Cones, Wells, Nelson, El Duque, Stanton, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that's a good thing that they're spending money on free agents instead of just pocketing the money.

 

Those late 90s, 2000 teams had a bunch of players they acquired through trades and free agency (O'Neill, Martinez, Brosius, Davis, Strawberry, Curtis, Cones, Wells, Nelson, El Duque, Stanton, etc.).

 

So? They had team chemistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that's a good thing that they're spending money on free agents instead of just pocketing the money.

 

Those late 90s, 2000 teams had a bunch of players they acquired through trades and free agency (O'Neill, Martinez, Brosius, Davis, Strawberry, Curtis, Cones, Wells, Nelson, El Duque, Stanton, etc.).

 

So? They had team chemistry.

 

What does that even mean? Especially in a sport like baseball

 

Even when they didn't have "team chemistry", they still did pretty well all things considered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Smues

If Al screams I'm going to go make a ham and cheese sandwich.

 

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

So who is in the running for Manny besides the Yankess? I heard that LAA pulled out and I think the Dodgers gave up too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means their egos didn't get in the way in the clubhouse and they played like a real team. With people like Bobby Abreu staining their clubhouse, I'm sure they'll have a better shot next season without him. In every sport there is a chemistry of a team, some more than others. But if you don't think a baseball team needs chemistry to play well together, you're mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It means their egos didn't get in the way in the clubhouse and they played like a real team.With people like Bobby Abreu staining their clubhouse, I'm sure they'll have a better shot next season without him. In every sport there is a chemistry of a team, some more than others. But if you don't think a baseball team needs chemistry to play well together, you're mistaken.

Was Abreu projectile shitting all over the clubhouse walls? Now that's just unsanitary.

 

The Yankees need to sign David Eckstein to get the CHEMISTRY~!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It means their egos didn't get in the way in the clubhouse and they played like a real team. With people like Bobby Abreu staining their clubhouse, I'm sure they'll have a better shot next season without him. In every sport there is a chemistry of a team, some more than others. But if you don't think a baseball team needs chemistry to play well together, you're mistaken.

Please explain how Abreu stained the clubhouse. This I gotta hear.

 

It wasn't chemistry that doomed the Yankees. It was that their ace starter got hurt, their All-Star catcher got hurt, and they have perhaps the worst team defense in baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lied. I couldn't back my statement so I threw a name out there based on his heritage. I'm racist, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It means their egos didn't get in the way in the clubhouse and they played like a real team. With people like Bobby Abreu staining their clubhouse, I'm sure they'll have a better shot next season without him. In every sport there is a chemistry of a team, some more than others. But if you don't think a baseball team needs chemistry to play well together, you're mistaken.

 

But in a sport that's individual based like baseball, what does that mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It means their egos didn't get in the way in the clubhouse and they played like a real team. With people like Bobby Abreu staining their clubhouse, I'm sure they'll have a better shot next season without him. In every sport there is a chemistry of a team, some more than others. But if you don't think a baseball team needs chemistry to play well together, you're mistaken.

 

But in a sport that's individual based like baseball, what does that mean?

 

I was being a bit facetious, but thinking a baseball team doesn't need chemistry isn't really the right assumption. The difference in chemistry is liking your pitcher and diving for any ground balls hit near you as an infielder, or not liking your pitcher so not putting yourself at the risk of getting hurt by diving for balls near you. I know in the major leagues it's different, but I've been around people like that, and as much as I don't think those types of players infiltrate the major leagues, it's still a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference in chemistry is liking your pitcher and diving for any ground balls hit near you as an infielder, or not liking your pitcher so not putting yourself at the risk of getting hurt by diving for balls near you.

 

"He ate the last chocolate brownie during the pregame meal so fuck him, I'm just going to let this game winning single roll right by."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was being a bit facetious, but thinking a baseball team doesn't need chemistry isn't really the right assumption. The difference in chemistry is liking your pitcher and diving for any ground balls hit near you as an infielder, or not liking your pitcher so not putting yourself at the risk of getting hurt by diving for balls near you. I know in the major leagues it's different, but I've been around people like that, and as much as I don't think those types of players infiltrate the major leagues, it's still a possibility.

 

It's not. The '70s Athletics didn't get along, nor did the Bronx Zoo Yankees. The '86 Mets had a bit of factioning. The '80 Phillies didn't get along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×