|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 109 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 24 of 109:
| 
Oct 26 21:31 UTC 2001 |
Detroit is a very good sports town, and specifically a very good
baseball town. It is definitely possible to have a contender in
Detroit.
I'm not sure where they placed on the total salary list (a list which
varies through the season anyway, as teams make trades and players get
injured); probably somewhat below the average. They cut salary from
last year. That was because Tom Ilitch had some sticker shock over the
price of Comerica Park. Ilitch personally paid a *lot* more for the
ballpark than most owners; I think he might have paid more than any
other owner ever has.
The Tigers have been in a downward spiral for 15 years; they traded
some great prospects (example" John Smoltz) to take a shot at winning
it all in 1987, then tried to buy a contender in the early 1990's, when
for a couple of years they had the highest salary in baseball, then
around the time Tom Monaghan bought the team, they decided they had to
build from the ground up and discovered they had almost no quality
prospects in their whole minor league system.
It's been an uphill struggle to build a good farm system. Partially
this requires luck; they've had some good prospects who didn't pan out
or who got injured. Partly it requires talent recognition; the Tigers
have not had many really good drafts. It takes about 4 years to take
a "normal" 1st or 2nd round draft choice and make him into a major
league player, assuming normal luck and normal ability to draft 1st and
2nd rounders.
Players haven't come up through the minors and bolted from the Tigers;
they have never made it up through the minors, gotten injured, or been
traded for guys who never made it as major leaguers. Other than Travis
Fryman, who was a star 3B for the Tigers and then just wasn't re-
signed, there haven't been any impact major leaguers who left the
Tigers for free agent opportunities.
The Tigers are in a tough spot now, and there's little for them to do
but to place blame. They have big expenses from Comerica Park, and
declining expectations (and support) from their fans. Their farm
system now seems more promising than it has in years, but honestly,
that's not saying a lot.
If they spend a lot of money on players and put together a winning
team, I am confident they could fill the ballpark. But without the
support of the fan base, they don't feel they have the money to spend.
Without the contender, the fan base doesn't feel compelled to go to the
ballpark.
|
polygon
|
|
response 25 of 109:
|
Oct 26 21:37 UTC 2001 |
I'd go to games if they returned to the old Tiger Stadium.
|
jep
|
|
response 26 of 109:
|
Oct 26 23:05 UTC 2001 |
Did you go to games before they moved to Comerica Park? How many per
year?
I've gone to maybe a dozen games at Comerica Park now, and I think it's
fine. I'd still have preferred they kept Tiger Stadium, but they
didn't do that.
|
aruba
|
|
response 27 of 109:
|
Oct 27 15:50 UTC 2001 |
I've been to 3 games at Comerica Park, and it really is a very nice place to
see a game. You should try it, Larry - it's much more rewarding to see a
good game than hold a grudge. (Of course, there weren't too many good gams
for the Tigers this past season...)
|
danr
|
|
response 28 of 109:
|
Oct 27 20:07 UTC 2001 |
I agree with Mark.
I grew up going to Tiger Stadium, and was sorry to see them move, but
the new park is really nice. It's a double shame that the team sucks so
badly. As jep says, if the team was even halfway decent, the fans would
be thronging to the stadium.
|
krj
|
|
response 29 of 109:
|
Oct 27 20:33 UTC 2001 |
jep's analysis in resp:24 is essentially what I believe.
After producing the fabulous crop of players which won the world series
in 1984 and won the division in 1987 -- Jack Morris, Alan Trammell,
Lou Whitaker, Lance Parrish, Kirk Gibson, probably a few more, almost
all home-grown by the Tigers farm system -- the wheels fell off.
Beyond John Smoltz and Travis Fryman, I can't think of any high-impact
players produced by the Tigers farm system in the last 15 years.
So what the heck happened? How did the Tigers go from producing most
of a home-grown World Series champion in the early 1980s, to the
subsequent decade-and-a-half of farm system futility?
|
jep
|
|
response 30 of 109:
|
Oct 28 03:08 UTC 2001 |
re #29: If you'll remember, 1984 was the year Tom Monaghan bought the
team. I don't remember what year he sold it; maybe 1994?
Sometimes, anyway, it seems he expected 1984 was a normal year; just buy
the team and get a 35-5 start and a World Series championship. Monaghan
did buy some other players that year and in following years. John
Smoltz went to Atlanta in 1987 in exchange for Doyle Alexander. Behind
Alexander, who won something like 13 straight games, the Tigers made it
to the playoffs that year.
But Monaghan had little interest in building the organization from the
minors. Whenever Bo Schembechler became the president of the Tigers, he
spotted that almost immediately. He went to work on upgrading the farm
system and the facilities of the farm system. I don't know if he ever
did anything else for the team.
He was not president for long; Monaghan lost interest in baseball (and
his other hobbies, such as collecting cars) and sold the team, and Bo
was canned.
1984 for the Tigers was not a normal year for a baseball team, though.
That team was built by then, and was ready to win. It seems to me the
Tigers have never built a team again. They rode Trammell, Whitaker and
Morris as long as they could, and have been scratching their heads since
then about where those guys went. They've bought stars, such as
pitchers Mike Moore and Tim Belcher (early 1990's), or traded for them
as they did a couple of years ago with Juan Gonzalez. But they've
seemed to expect all they need is to add star power.
People seem to add "like the Yankees" to your sentence when you talk
about buying star players. But you have to admire the Yankees; they
didn't just throw money at players, they threw their money wisely. The
Tigers have had many occurrances of big-name players who didn't "work
out", but that hasn't very often happened to the Yankees. They do pay a
lot and get a lot of big names, but they get big names who can (and do)
contribute to their ballclub.
I don't know exactly what they need to do, but the Tigers need to learn
to be more like the Yankees. Make the investments, but make them a
little more wisely.
|
krj
|
|
response 31 of 109:
|
Oct 28 06:44 UTC 2001 |
I had completely forgotten that 1984 was the year Monaghan purchased the
club. That has to be it. I had figured that Bo had been a bust in
working on young player development for the Tigers, but you're saying
that he never had the time to get the job done, correct?
|
danr
|
|
response 32 of 109:
|
Oct 29 01:13 UTC 2001 |
My guess, in response to #29, was that it was the year Monaghan bought
the team. Fetzer and Campbell were real "baseball guys." Monaghan
bought them as a feather in his cap.
There was a lot of hope when Illich bought the team. A lot was made of
how he had played in the Tigers farm system at one point.
Unfortunately, he seems more interested in the Wings than the Tigers.
jep's right, too about the Yankees. They have a killer combination of a
strong farm system and enough money to get the players they need to
fill in the gaps.
|
jep
|
|
response 33 of 109:
|
Oct 29 19:22 UTC 2001 |
re #31: I don't know if Bo had either the ability or the time to turn
around the Tiger's farm system. I remember him focusing on
facilities. Certainly that must be part of the equation. I have no
idea what kind of handle he had on finding the right people to pick
coaches, trainers and scouts.
re #32: A great farm system is a result of wisely spent money. You get
great prospects, but then you have to develop them into great players.
The Yankees brought Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera through their farm
system; they're both not just the best at their positions, but among
the best in history. That's no accident. It takes good development
staff and also facilities. It takes smart staff and coaches. Also, it
takes the ability to recognize the right direction as an organization,
and the commitment to stick with it. George Steinbrenner is a pain for
the rest of baseball, but for his team, he's a great owner. Not just
rich, but smart and committed.
|
polygon
|
|
response 34 of 109:
|
Oct 29 19:24 UTC 2001 |
Re 26. Yes, I went to games at Tiger Stadium. Maybe three or four, in
the three years I lived in Detroit. Only once since then. So, yeah, my
support is no great loss to the organization.
|
richard
|
|
response 35 of 109:
|
Oct 30 00:58 UTC 2001 |
The current plan being worked on by the commissioner's office includes
the elimination of two teams. But what two teams is subject to debate.
The owners of Montreal and Florida have indicated willingness to trade
for or take over other franchises in markets with more favorable
economic conditions.
Could always eliminate the Tigers and let the Tigers ownership take
over the Marlins in Miami (if they're willing to pay for a new stadium
down there) You put the Tigers players in a dispersal draft, and move
the Montreal franchise to Detroit where they'd assume the Tigers name.
The current Montreal ownership would surely pay more for top players if
they had the Detroit market instead of Montreal.
This takes care of unhappy ownership situations in montreal, florida
and detroit, while ultimately only eliminating montreal.
|
danr
|
|
response 36 of 109:
|
Oct 30 13:27 UTC 2001 |
That's just stupid. Illich is a Detroit guy, and if the Tigers aren't
here, there's no reason for him to be an owner.
|
krj
|
|
response 37 of 109:
|
Nov 2 03:16 UTC 2001 |
World Series game 4: I felt bad for the Diamondback's relief pitcher
Kim, who struck out the side in the 8th inning, only to give up a tie
in the ninth and eventually the winning run.
Kim is a "submarine" pitcher; I don't recall seeing that style in a
prominent game since Dan Quisenberry was pitching against the Tigers
in the 1980s. Somebody (jep?) please write about the tactical reasons
and the history of underhanded pitching?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 38 of 109:
|
Nov 2 05:40 UTC 2001 |
And it's the 12th inning of game 5. 2-all, 1 out, with New York at bat.
Last I looked, it was 2-0 in the seventh.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 39 of 109:
|
Nov 2 05:42 UTC 2001 |
And now it's over: 2-3 Yankees.
I don't care who wins the Series, but it's fun to watch come-from-behind wins.
|
jep
|
|
response 40 of 109:
|
Nov 2 17:53 UTC 2001 |
Byung- Kim did the same thing again last night; he was down to 2 outs
in the 9th, with a 2 run lead, and gave up a two run homer. The
Yankees took 12 innings to win last night, but win they did. While I'm
rooting for Arizona, I certainly can't complain about the interest
level of the games. This has been an amazing World Series.
|
jep
|
|
response 41 of 109:
|
Nov 2 18:25 UTC 2001 |
re #37: Please note, I never played much baseball at any level. I
watch a lot, but I've never thrown or hit a curveball.
By using an unusual style, the pitchers are making the ball look a
little unusual to the batter. It's another thing the batters have to
be aware of, during the 7/10 of a second or thereabouts they have to
decide whether to swing at the ball. A sidearm pitch comes from
further to the side than a normal pitch, and a submarine ball starts
low and has to come up a little.
Also, the release point affects the way a pitch works. A sidearm or
submarine curveball spins sideways, which makes it break horizontally,
like a frisbee. A regular curveball breaks down and to the side. A
submarine fastball tails more than a regular fastball; it breaks a
little in toward the batter or out away from him. A regular fastball
has backspin, which causes it to rise. (A great major league fastball
can appear to hop as it approaches the plate.)
Basically, the lower the release point, the more sideways the break on
the curveball. The higher the release point, the more downward motion
you get.
|
danr
|
|
response 42 of 109:
|
Nov 3 01:01 UTC 2001 |
That really was an incredible finish last night. Almost unbelievable.
The key really wasn't the home run, though. It was Arizona's inability
to score in the eighth (or was it the seventh?) when they got Womack to
third with no outs. If they'd gotten him home, the home run wouldn't
have mattered.
It will be very difficult, I think, for Arizona to win now.
|
senna
|
|
response 43 of 109:
|
Nov 3 08:21 UTC 2001 |
You never know. The Johnson can easily win game six on his own, and I
wouldn't be surprised if Brenly is calmly telling Kim "WHEN the ninth inning
comes around in game seven, I am going to give you the ball and you ARE going
to win the World Series for us." He's got two days to build up his
confidence, and would't it be a great story if Kim went back out there and
stoned the heart of the Yankees order for the championship?
The Yankees will probably tee off on Johnson and moot the point Saturday,
though.
|
aruba
|
|
response 44 of 109:
|
Nov 3 14:35 UTC 2001 |
Kim beating the Yankees in game 7 sure would be a sight to see. But if the
Yankees beat him instead, I don't know if I could take it - I nearly threw
something at the television the last two times.
|
senna
|
|
response 45 of 109:
|
Nov 3 16:40 UTC 2001 |
Well, just with those two losses, there's a chance that he'll never recover.
Some pitchers just don't make it back from bad blown saves, and he's young
enough that this could really affect his future. I don't think i tmatters
if he loses another game or not as far as that goes.
|
jep
|
|
response 46 of 109:
|
Nov 4 00:33 UTC 2001 |
There have been 5 games played so far, and so far, each one has been won
by the home team. I don't think Arizona is in despair just yet.
|
krj
|
|
response 47 of 109:
|
Nov 4 03:22 UTC 2001 |
Game 6: So when did Fox decide to start televising batting practice?
|
senna
|
|
response 48 of 109:
|
Nov 4 05:58 UTC 2001 |
Arizona absolutely killed the Yankees today. I didn't see any of the game,
tied up with "other obligations," but it was impressive to see. Tomorrow,
the Yankees could become the second team to be totally outnumbered in major
statistical categories in a World Series and win, along with the 1960
Pittsburgh Pirates, who beat... the Yankees. Actually, their stats
(specifically, they trail in runs scored by a decided amount) probably aren't
as lopsided. As of 1990, the Pirates had the highest ERA in World Series
history, and won.
|
