The Cardinals are in the World Series!!!

[MTK]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I never thought of the Mets as being arrogant. How are they arrogant?

Because they are from NY.

The '86 Mets were definitely arrogant. I don't think this team is though.

[dall-assblows]

baseball is too long and too boring.

they get paid the most for doing the least

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

I think by including Oakland in your list you are undercutting your own argument. Oakland is a small market team that has been able to win consistently by drafting smart, keeping their farm leagues stocked, and letting players go when they are no longer available for cheap. How many big name free agents has Oakland signed during the last several years? How many former A's players have signed huge deals with other teams? There is no question that the odds in baseball are stacked against teams like Kansas City, but teams like Oakland prove that its possible to overcome these inequalities by being a little bit smarter.

If there was parity KC still wouldn't win, because they are one of the worst run franchises in all sports.

I understand your point, but I was not saying those that spend the most always make the playoffs. Just that there is no parity in baseball. Look at the NFL, THAT is parity. If we were to take a guess right now at the playoff teams for the 2007 season in MLB, we would be 90% accurate. If we did the same thing for NFL we'd be 30% accurate at best.


Just a note about the Cards...Tony Larussa either sweeps teams, or gets swept in the series...I say he gets swept.

[BigRed]

Game one is in the bag! Cards up 1-0. NOBODY thought that would happen. Even the "experts" who actually thought the Cards might win this series. (And I've only found 2 of those...)

[BigRed]

Guess the Cards are gonna sweep now!!!

Originally Posted by jsarno

Just a note about the Cards...Tony Larussa either sweeps teams, or gets swept in the series...I say he gets swept.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

I think by including Oakland in your list you are undercutting your own argument. Oakland is a small market team that has been able to win consistently by drafting smart, keeping their farm leagues stocked, and letting players go when they are no longer available for cheap. How many big name free agents has Oakland signed during the last several years? How many former A's players have signed huge deals with other teams? There is no question that the odds in baseball are stacked against teams like Kansas City, but teams like Oakland prove that its possible to overcome these inequalities by being a little bit smarter.

If there was parity KC still wouldn't win, because they are one of the worst run franchises in all sports.

The odds maybe stacked against KC, but perhaps not to the exent some may think they are. I posted this a couple years back, but I'll repeat it again. Take the Royals's figures from 2003. They made around $20 million from revenue sharing. Plus roughly $25 million in national tv, radio money. They draw around 1.6 million fans to their stadium. Let's say that brings in another $50 million or so. Well now the Royals have $100 million dollars in revenue. Yet their major league payroll is only $46 million. Where's the rest of that money going then? It can pretty much go anywhere the owner wants it to go-stadium renovations, advertising, the team's minor league system. In theory, because of revenue sharing and the luxury tax the more money teams like the Yankees spend the more money funnels down to teams like KC who complain they don't have enough money to compete (which isn't true). If there is no rule in place to enforce that this money is spent on the major league roster that's not the fault of the high spending teams.

The other thing to keep in mind with parity is the length of the schedule. If we ended the baseball season after 16 games this year, the Orioles, Rockies, Astros, and Reds would have all made the playoffs. With the Tigers and Cardinals out, and the Yankees in the cellar. But eventually the cream rises to the top. If a football season were 160+ games, I imagine you'd start to see the same teams more often than not.