|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 109 responses total. |
danr
|
|
response 7 of 109:
| 
Oct 25 17:17 UTC 2001 |
Actually, I'd be happy to see major league baseball lose a few teams.
Many of the players in the majors today are not really "major league"
talent. They're just up in the majors because there aren't enough good
players to go around.
This also leads to teams rushing players into the big leagues to the
detriment of the player's development. I think Brandon Inge is a good
example of this.
|
aruba
|
|
response 8 of 109:
|
Oct 25 17:22 UTC 2001 |
The other problem with the Montreal team, and with a lot of hockey teams, as
I understand it, is the weakness of the Canadian dollar over the past few
years. Canadian teams get their revenue in Canadian dollars but have to
compete for players with American teams whose revenue comes in in American
dollars.
I hope a way can be found to move the Expos to Washington, too. Washington
has badly wanted a baseball team ever since the second incarnation of the
Senators left in (I believe) 1972.
It does seem, as Richard said, that the split between the big market teams
and the small market teams is the real division in baseball. The Yankees
have won 3 (possibly to become 4) championships in a row, and well they
ought, since they can afford to buy as much talent as they can find. I
don't know enough about the economics of the situation to know if
profit-sharing is a good idea, but I wish something would change.
BTW the media just *love* it when the big-market teams win, so they won't be
any help.
|
aruba
|
|
response 9 of 109:
|
Oct 25 17:23 UTC 2001 |
Dan slipped in.
|
brighn
|
|
response 10 of 109:
|
Oct 25 17:24 UTC 2001 |
#2, #3> Except for the bit about people not being killed, what is the
difference in justification between that and similar nonsense during the Roman
Empire? We've got it into our heads that "world class city" means "has lots
of sports teams."
|
jep
|
|
response 11 of 109:
|
Oct 25 18:07 UTC 2001 |
This item is linked from autum 2001 agora to the sports conference.
|
richard
|
|
response 12 of 109:
|
Oct 25 18:07 UTC 2001 |
Montreal also isnt a baseball town. It is a hockey town. There are
some places where certain sports just dont get over. Like football
in L.A., both NFL teams moved away, its not a football town.
And the NBA hasnt worked in Vancouver either. Vancouver isnt a
basketball town.
|
jep
|
|
response 13 of 109:
|
Oct 25 18:45 UTC 2001 |
I agree with Richard. Drawing an average of 7000 fans per game does
show a lack of interest in Montreal for baseball. Folding the Expos
will do very little harm to major league baseball.
The Expos didn't even get many fans when they were contending for the
National League pennant, which I think was in the strike-shortened 1994
season. They just aren't a viable team.
Several things can be done to make a team viable. The team can invest
it's money into scouting and it's minor leagues. Montreal did this a
decade ago, and produced some extremely attractive players, such as
Pedro Martinez. These guys won some games, but as soon as they were
recognized as stars, they bolted for higher-paying clubs. Cleveland
built itself into a winner by building some players in it's farm
system, and then signing them to long-term contracts when they were
young.
A highly motivated owner can purchase the team and pump in lots of
money. This is less common than it used to be, as major league
baseball is a darned expensive hobby, no matter who the owner is. It's
*much* more expensive than it used to be. The Florida Marlins took
their expansion team to the World Series because the owner, Wayne
Huizenga, bought a great group of players. Then he lost interest and
broke the team up, and then sold it. They're now on the right track
for a small-market team, with a good farm system.
A really smart owner can invest even limited money where it really can
count, in a good coach and a good management team. Oakland is a small
market team; they had the 2nd lowest salary in the majors this year,
next to Montreal. But they made the playoffs each of the last two
years. Their general manager, Billy Beane, recognizes talent very
well. Oakland's core talent won't last for long if they can't pay them
a lot, but for right now they're an impressive group.
But there are no indications Montreal has the capability to do any of
these things. And as I said earlier, there's no reason to believe the
fans of the Expos would support their team, even if it was a winner.
|
scott
|
|
response 14 of 109:
|
Oct 25 20:25 UTC 2001 |
The answer is to attend minor-league teams (if possible in your area!). My
favorite baseball experiencen was the Toledo Mudhens, and now Lansing has a
team as well (the Lugnuts).
|
tfbjr
|
|
response 15 of 109:
|
Oct 25 20:27 UTC 2001 |
We have the Royals (AAA farm team to Kansas City) here in Omaha.
Formerly the Golden Spikes (yeeuck)
Before that... the Royals.
Very fun to attend.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 16 of 109:
|
Oct 25 23:44 UTC 2001 |
Detroit's new home of the Tigers is one of the few stadium
build without a massive amount of city or state dollars. Is this
true?
|
aruba
|
|
response 17 of 109:
|
Oct 26 04:28 UTC 2001 |
Re #15: Did they wear golden spikes on their shoes?
Re #13: Where did the TIgers place on the list of the lowest payed teams?
|
danr
|
|
response 18 of 109:
|
Oct 26 12:56 UTC 2001 |
Another discouraging thing about the way major league baseball is
currently set up is that the so-called "minor market" teams are really
acting as farm teams for the bigger boys. Teams like Montreal and
Kansas City (I think Detroit is kind of on the fence here) find and
develop talent only to have them jump to a "major market" team as soon
as they are eligible for free agency.
I'm not sure it will ever be possible for those teams to accumulate
enough talent to actually contend for a title. And if you never have
the hope of contending, what's the point? Why should fans go to games
in which the home team gets regularly creamed?
|
aruba
|
|
response 19 of 109:
|
Oct 26 15:41 UTC 2001 |
Well, Cubs fans have made a virtue out of losing, somehow. But it's true
that the Cubs have had plenty of good seasons, even if they haven't won any
world series since 1909. So I basically agree.
|
drew
|
|
response 20 of 109:
|
Oct 26 18:25 UTC 2001 |
In any baseball league, it's a mathematical certainty that one of the teams
is going to finish last.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 21 of 109:
|
Oct 26 18:41 UTC 2001 |
(it isn't possible for two or more teams to finish last?) :-p
|
drew
|
|
response 22 of 109:
|
Oct 26 20:22 UTC 2001 |
No, not to my knowledge. They don't allow tie-games; that's what extra innings
are all about. Well, maybe I'll amend that to "at least one team".
|
polygon
|
|
response 23 of 109:
|
Oct 26 20:27 UTC 2001 |
Games may not be tied, but overall records can easily be. So, yeah,
you could easily have multiple teams finish last.
|
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?
|
