What's new

*** Official 2002 Major League Baseball Season Thread (1 Viewer)

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Yeah, I can't let this one slide by. It's not what he's doing now but what he as worth to prospective new teams at the time. I know the Cardinals were going after him pretty heavily too and guess who got 'em. Don't point to the fact that he's doing bad now and say that it wasn't about the Yanks' "dominance" in the FA market.
Um, John, I also posted the comparitive numbers AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE (this wasn't a FA thing). No, not everyone wanted to GIVE UP JUST AS MUCH as they were getting, PLUS 2 prospects.

It wasn't money, it was overpaying with players. It's called a bad trade. I mean if the Yanks trade Giambi and Soriano to get Rolen back when he was "hot" (before going to the Cards), then is that money??? No.

The other teams weren't about to trade away a pitcher with equal or better stats, same age, and 2 prospects to go with it.

But when I pointed that out people went with the "yes, but wait till you see what Weaver WILL do" as if anything he HAD done showed more ability than what Lilly had shown. I mean the pre-trade numbers are there to be seen and they don't really favor Weaver at all. In fact Lilly has shown more dominance by a higher K rate.

Even straight up Lilly for Weaver looks like a push. But throw in 2 prospects and it looks like a Yankee mistake. This isn't a case of Weaver refusing the Cards becauce they were unwilling to redo his contract for millions more, forcing the Yanks into being the only team. This isn't the Yanks dumping cheap nobodies for an expensive star. This is giving up MORE talent for LESS talent.

Anyway, the reason I dug the thread up was to say that WRIGLEY ROCKED! I can't believe I wasted all those years not coming up to Cubs games. I vowed to never let a summer pass without at least one trip up to Wrigley.

The matchup was great - Wood vs Oswalt. Bags and Sosa both put balls onto Waveland, the game had good pitching and good hitting. Both SPs got kicked out. Crazy and entertaining game. Did I mention that Wrigley live is about as awesome as it gets. It was kinda like being in those friendly minor league parks, but with just a touch of MLB size. Much more comfortable than the mega-parks, though many of those are quite beautiful.

I feel good now, I've seen Cubs/Astros at both the Astrodome and Wrigley, 2 classic parks.
 

John Thomas

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2000
Messages
2,634
What is interesting about the whole mess is that the Yanks didn't express interest until another team did, which has happened before. Who pulls the strings around their organization? Why did he do this? There might be more to it than what's on the surface.

Like you said however, their position allows them to make 'mistakes' like this and not suffer too much from them. I can't really fault Steinbrenner for doing what he does though. If you can go whatever speed you wish down the interstate, don't feel bad because you have a Ferrari and the guy next to you has a Hyundai.

Good to hear you enjoyed Wrigley. I've been wanting to go for quite awhile but never got around to getting up the nerve to go to Chi-town. If you get the chance, Busch Stadium is another awe-inspiring stadium.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Okay, let's recap. NL - sure, all money teams. I'll give you that.
AL - only the Yanks are even close to being a money team.
I totally discount mid-season adjustments because if you are way behind you will dump your salary lower, ala the Indians for example. You have to play the first half of the year at least with that opening payroll, so that's the payroll that gives you a chance or not. Their are too many variables in figuring in the effects of mid-season pickups due to teams already having winning or losing seasons.
With that in mind, here are your highly probably playoff teams and their payroll rankings.
AL
Yanks 1st (125.9)
Twins 27th (40.2)
A's 28th (39.6)
Angels 15th (61.7)
Top 10 payrolls not in the playoffs - AL
Red Sox 2nd (108.3)
Rangers 3rd (105.3)
Mariners 8th (80.2)
Indians 9th (78.9)
NL
Braves 7th (93.4)
Cards 13th (74.0)
D'Backs 4th (102.8)
Giants 10th (78.3)
Dodgers 5th (94.8)
Top 10 payrolls not in playoffs - NL
Mets 6th (94.6)
AND, either SF or LA will not be in the playoffs.
If you are keeping score at home that means that 6 of the top 10 payroll teams will NOT be in the playoffs.
Also, it means that 2 of the bottom 5 payrolls WILL be in the playoffs.
Divisions won by top payroll...
AL East
NL East
NL West
Not...
AL Central, not even close.
AL West, top team will finish 4th, 2nd highest will finish 3rd.
NL Central, Cards are close, but the Cubs spent more and the Astros aren't that far behind. And let's put this one in even more perspective. The 3rd largest city is Chicago, the 4th largest is Houston. St. Louis is FAR behind the size of either of those cities.
Something else to consider...the A's couldn't afford Giambi, despite Oakland being a fairly sizeable city (SF is running a much higher payroll for example, and the A's of the late 80's had a star-filled lineup as an example).
Now what if the A's spend the 10.4/year for Giambi, or since I don't remember if the deal is staggered, let's say even $20/year for Giambi, the team payroll would still be only 59.6 and in the bottom half of the payrolls (Angels are the halfway point). How dominate would the A's then look? I'd say that an A's + Giambi would be the WS favs right now (with D'backs the NL favs).
How much weaker would the Yanks be if they lost Giambi? Maybe still a 90 win team, but not the best team and yet they would still have the highest payroll.
Also, the Expos could resign Colon and could spend $10m on a upper level FA and still be spending only about $55m maybe and would seem to be a strong playoff contender (.500 ball right now).
My point in all this is that we have facts now to go with that ever running "small market" or "low payrolls" have no chance, etc, etc.
Look, they do. The proof is that (once again) several very low payroll teams are in the mix.
I still say that management is the biggest factor (and maybe spending some on the farm system/coaches). There are several team owners who intentionally have not done this and their teams continue to struggle.
And btw, those also rans in the AL East like Baltimore and Toronto. Well they had pretty decent payrolls too. Toronto 76.8 (11th) and Baltimore at 60.4 (16th).
On to some elimination magic numbers (with all of SUN results counted)... these are combos of a team losing or the team they are chasing winning. AL WC is Oak, NL WC is SF (as of today)
Red Sox 5 (division) 6 (wild card)
M's 5 (division) 6 (wild card)
Both are in big trouble. If the Angels fall behind Oak, start subtracting from the magic number when they win instead, but only if they are behind/tied with the A's.
Phillies 2 (wild card)
Expos 2 (wild card)
Marlins 1 (wild card)
Gone within 2 days probably
Astros 7 (division) 8 (wild card)
Reds 1 (division) 2 (wild card)
Reds are toast, Astros almost need to win out.
Dodgers 6 (division) 13 (wild card)
Giants 7 (division) 15 (wild card vs LA)
Anyway, congrats to the Twins, and hooray that we didn't have a strike with the Giants/Dodgers coming down to yet another "one goes home" final week.
I'm saying A's/D'backs in the World Series with an A's WS win 4-3.
 

John Thomas

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2000
Messages
2,634
I hate to detract from such a well-put post with my tiny, rambling post but I think the A's are in a better position without Giambi. If they footed the bill to keep him there, I believe they wouldn't have been able to keep Tejada or Dye. I know there was a small blip on this exact situation on Baseball Tonight stating that letting Giambi go was probably the best move on their part (not taking anything away from Giambi - he's a darn fine player).
 

Joseph S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 23, 1999
Messages
2,862
To include Baltimore and Toronto in any sort of salary discussion is asinine. Albert Belle's $12.4 million is only on the books so the insurance company will pay it. Essentially, they're in the same league as the Royals. Toronto had a salary about half that of the final Yankees salary and Mondesi was traded to them to boot. In the end, barring a Houston miracle. The team that actually spent the most in the division won 3 of 6. You mention the Cubs spent more, but given that the difference was a mere $1.6 million at the start and the Cards were actually spending more per player from the start, you can't ignore the fact that in-season pickups not only put the Cards also over the Cubs in total salary, but also put them into the top ten parolls. The A's picked up Durham's lofty salary which put them well out of the lower 5 tier. The other problem is that Cleveland has been dumping salary for two years, and they continued to do so throughout the year. So while you list them as a top ten, there was no way that this would ever have happened.

This of course means that only 2 of the top 10 didn't have a shot at the playoffs while just 3-4 of the bottom 20 had a shot. It's quite clear that money is the deciding factor who wins and who loses. Otherwise San Diego would have dominated the late 80's-90's in much the same way their castoffs dominated both All-Star squads. Oak developed all this talent and don't have a thing to show for it. Damon, Giambi, and Isrignhausen aren't with the team now because of free agency. They were thus forced to trade away both Hinske and Miller for a mediocre closer in Koch. They then made a foolish trade for the latest Yankee starting stiff of the year, Ted Lilly, giving up on Carlos Pena and doing nothing but helping fulfill a Yankee wish. I'm surprised they didn't ask for Knight, Keisler, Jodie, Choate, Yarnall too just to make it look like they got a fair deal for Pena. In the end they are still only a "Wild Card."

We still don't have any recent evidence that the teams with low salaries that get through the division actually win playoff games and we still have 18 or 30 below .500 and of course the crap of the AL EAST are a combined 80 games below .500. With an unbalanced schedule we get nothing but the inflated win totals of NY and Boston against these horrific squads. It isn't going to get any better thanks to the recent collective bargaining disaster. Without a lower and upper cap the gaps between the haves and have nots will continue to grow and the overall product night in and night out will become more unbearable to watch. They need to contract at least 8 teams to get some level of competition and that isn't about to happen.

Tor, Balt, Tam, KC, Det, Mon, Fla, Pit, and Mke are nine teams in the running for those coveted 8 spots.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Oak developed all this talent and don't have a thing to show for it. Damon, Giambi, and Isrignhausen aren't with the team now because of free agency. They were thus forced to trade away both Hinske and Miller for a mediocre closer in Koch.
So did the A's have some specialty scouts doing player development in the Royals and Mets farm system or what? Damon was a pickup (for money) from the Royals. He was let go via FA because he did not seem like a wise investment after the season he had with the A's (notice that other Royals' talent, Dye, was retained because he had produced). Yes, that's the A's taking the money players from the Royals.

Izzy, of course, came up and FAILED as a Mets young stud starter (7.58 ERA in 97). He didn't become a closer until the A's converted him and saved his career, though moving a guy to the bullpen is a far cry from "developing him". Koch is a younger pitcher, has equal or better numbers than Isringhausen (his WHIP improved going to the NL), and was the A's idea of an UPGRADE to a younger player with similar skills.

Hinske was a prospect only, with no MLB experience, and he was sitting behind ERIC CHAVEZ. OF COURSE THEY TRADED HIM. Give me a break in trying to use this. Koch was a known quantity and has delivered as much or more than expected.

They upgraded to a younger closer by trading a player they couldn't use at his natural position. They save money by not having to resign Izzy, have a slightly better SP, and didn't affect their starting IF to do so.

As for Ted Lilly being a "stiff", at the time of the trade he had the BEST ERA of the Yanks SPs, a better K/IP ratio than "stud" Weaver, and came straight over and gave the A's a 6 IP/0 Run effort against Tampa, and despite having run problems due to injury, he is still running near 1 K/IP with the A's. After all, he got hurt in his 2nd game, and only has 2 limited starts since returning from injury. Hardly time to judge him as a healthy SP.

Incidentally, on Baseball Tonight they mentioned that the A's have tried to alter Lilly's delivery, which might also be affecting his numbers upon his return (and he still has a 3.77 ERA for the season with a .79 K/IP ratio).

Pena was a bust. He surged with the Tigers for a few weeks and then fell back to the same old, same old. His .769 OPS now is quite stellar compared to the .724 OPS he had going with the A's.

Meanwhile, the Twins have been horrible against lefties, and Lilly gives their staff yet another solid lefty, probably coming out of the bullpen for the playoffs.
 

Joseph S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 23, 1999
Messages
2,862
continue to be of the opinion that only money spent WISELY will win, and it doesn't have to be anywhere near the most spent.

It doesn't matter a lick how "wisely" you spend it if the other teams have the pockets to blow money on White, Vander Wal, G. Williams, and Spencer only to throw another $8+ mil on Mondesi. Eventually, they'll find a better guy than the poor market or they'll just take him from the poor market. Oakland gets one maybe two tries and then they're stuck with Hatteberg playing first base.
 

Mark Zimmer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,318
My thought that has been developing through the labor strife is that for some reason baseball has successfully convinced the public, and some of the owners, apparently, that owning a baseball team is a business. It's not. It's primarily an ego trip for billionaires. It's an elite little club for 30 or so guys who have made their big bucks elsewhere and want something novel.

But that's not a business. And if they can't afford to pay ballplayer salaries to attract good players, or can't hire good enough scouts to scrounge up good youngsters, then they shouldn't be owners. They'd be happier if they went back to selling used cars. Can't be competitive? Sell the team to someone who can.

[flame suit on]
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Today the Reds, Marlins, and Phillies were officially eliminated.

In the AL only Boston and Seattle remain in the hunt.

In the NL the Expos are officially eliminated simply because SF and LA have to play at least 2 more games, so one of the 2 teams will have to get to 87 wins, thus dropping the Expos out. But at least they made it to the final 7 in the NL. Not too shabby for team they wanted to drop in the off season (boy, has that blown up in Bud's face, like almost everything else in his career as commish and pseudo-commish).

How about that A's/Angels battle, not to mention the SF/LA game. Both were incredible (but a 5 and 3 hitter for Mulder and Washburn in 9 and 8 IP respectively!!!).

Seattle came through in the clutch to hang on to what little hope they have.

The Astros are blowing their perfect chance to gain ground on SF and LA while they play each other. And here most people couldn't fathom how the Cards would be able to rebound from Kile's death. That's some story.

It's been another terrific MLB season, and it's finishing up really strong.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Obviously St. Louis wiped out Houston in the Central with the win tonight.
Also, the A's clinched a post season berth on Friday as well.
For Saturday we have some big doings.
Yanks win = division title
D'backs win = clinched playoff berth
Angels win = clinched playoff spot (if Yanks and Angels win, the 4 AL spots are clinched)
Red Sox loss = eliminated from post season
Mariners loss = eliminated from post season
The M's already were eliminated from division title hopes. Their only chance is an Angels collapse.
Houston still has a miracle shot at the wild card, but they are chasing the Giants. It's possible the Astros could win the next 5 straight and (less) possible that the Giants could lose 4 straight. If that happened however, they would end up with a pretty big 3 game series head to head (depending on what the Dodgers did in the meantime - they only need to win 4 of their last 8 to eliminate the Astros and thats 6 vs SD and 2 vs Rockies).
Of course, those last 3 SF/Astros games could still be big since LA has the apparently easier road down the stretch.
I can't believe MLB didn't schedule any last week series between SF, LA and ARZ. Shouldn't at least 2 of those teams be playing this last week?? It's not like it's a big suprise that those 3 are in it, and LA/SF is a classic last week series.
Instead we have the drama of San Diego and interdivision games. :rolleyes
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top