Envisioning a bold new National League

"There could be a thriving and astonishingly popular National League. The problem is, the three potential flagship teams—the Mets, the Cubs and the Dodgers—are all a mess right now. And baseball should be doing everything in its power to get those three clubs to thrive, be productive, to win and have star power."

over 1 year ago Russ 18 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Fun read albeit a little wishy washy

It pointed out, rightly, that the sport would be much more popular if the Mets, Dodgers and Cubs were perennial contenders. However, they author didn’t really pose solutions. “Baseball should do everything in its power,” he says, but what does that entail?

by TheBigStapler on Jan 21, 2011 12:56 PM EST reply actions

Yeah, that is a week point of the article

I think that MLB (specifically Bud Selig) strongly recommended that the Mets hire Sandy. I’m not sure if much more can be done by MLB.

"The Mets are gonna be amazin'!" - Casey Stengel
"Bounding and astounding!" - Clyde Frazier

by Russ on Jan 21, 2011 1:47 PM EST up reply actions

"Basically, if the Yankees are Wall Street, the Mets would be the Village."

I think that this is an interesting way of comparing the teams.

"The Mets are gonna be amazin'!" - Casey Stengel
"Bounding and astounding!" - Clyde Frazier

by Russ on Jan 21, 2011 1:49 PM EST reply actions

The Village is way more fun.

Wall Street sucks anyway.

I am willing to wait to build a world class franchise (h/t to millsy)

by BobbyV_Incognito on Jan 21, 2011 7:12 PM EST up reply actions

Plus, Wall Street is full of corporate banker types.

Save Jenrry Mejia!

by Ogre39666 on Jan 21, 2011 7:20 PM EST up reply actions

One of the reasons it sucks.

I am willing to wait to build a world class franchise (h/t to millsy)

by BobbyV_Incognito on Jan 21, 2011 7:26 PM EST up reply actions

"They could embody the scrappy, lunch pail New Yorker, all the while taking on the challenge of their rivals in Philadelphia."

Can’t we just pay good players? Do they need to embody anything other than a good baseball team? We could fill the team with David Ecksteins and be worse than we have been at any point during the last decade.

“How can a single team possibly have so many massive deals for the likes of Oliver Perez, Francisco Rodriguez and Luis Castillo and see them not only be unproductive but also untradeable? How could a team suffer back-to-back collapses like they did in 2007 and 2008 and later have the indignity of Johan Santana’s injuries?”

Omar Minaya.

Kicking knowledge in the face.

by BlackOps on Jan 21, 2011 2:02 PM EST reply actions

Hahaha this sentence makes me laugh...

"How can a single team possibly have so many massive deals for the likes of Oliver Perez, Francisco Rodriguez and Luis Castillo and see them not only be unproductive but also untradeable?

At least in terms of Castillo and Perez…those were horrible contracts and it’s really no surprise that either is untradeable. I mean is the author saying that because this team has so many massive deals, they should be good? Massive deals to terrible players only handicap a team, like we are right now. Bad players are bad players…no surprise there.

Chamption of the R.A. Dickey Face contest and "Cromulent Photoshopper Extraordinaire" of Amazin' Avenue!

by Steve Schreiber on Jan 21, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions

The thing is, though

I could off the top of head list 20 bad contracts, and if I really looked into it, I have no doubt I could list multiples per team. We’re actually lucky, really, that our headliner of a poor contract is 3/36. I know it’s been said, but I really think the Mets just get the headlines because they’re in the eye of the storm, media-wise.

What really boggles is how profligate MLB is in general. That’s the story. Tens and tens of millions a year, hundreds, really, spent to essentially no purpose every year. Sure, with the contract structure, you have to pay for injury, and you can’t ever have a sure thing. Even with those caveats, though, the MLB system is really, really retrograde in terms of being at all accountable for the money that is spent – wasted – every year.

Which – hello, monopoly.

by SuperT on Jan 21, 2011 3:42 PM EST up reply actions

We should really use a wordfilter

that changes any form of 3/36 to a puppy picture

"..."

by Thaddeus Ballpheasant on Jan 22, 2011 2:22 AM EST up reply actions

Fixed

We should really use a wordfilter
that changes any form of ~~3/36~~ to a puppy picture

It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.

by MookieTheCat on Jan 22, 2011 3:21 AM EST up reply actions

awww

now this is a contract i love

"..."

by Thaddeus Ballpheasant on Jan 22, 2011 8:01 PM EST up reply actions

now would this word filter

turn puppy pictures into 3/36 contracts? Because that would jeopardize puppy avenue.

Ryan Miller was the true MVP. See my profile for rant.

by Jsz on Feb 2, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions

Haha

that’s like on Metalocalypse when the band wants Charles Ofdensen to say “hamburger time” instead of “dead” or “dieing”.

Save Jenrry Mejia!

by Ogre39666 on Jan 22, 2011 3:25 AM EST up reply actions

I haven't looked very much into this

and I understand your point about the monopoly. It’s what baffles me sometimes about the Yankees’ spending: how can the Steinbrenners be willing to spend so much more than everybody else to get what amounts to pretty much a one-in-eight chance of winning the WS every year?

But maybe the expected value of a team’s payroll is all right by them. Though there’s the uncertainty of bad contracts, they also get 6 or so years of team control for some really good players. Who knows, maybe the owners privately think most players are suckers to play for the money they do, kind of like how I envision shareholders at the big investment banks looking at the employees who take home multimillion dollar bonuses on multibillion dollar profits for the banks, and thiking “Suckers!”

The idiot formerly known as pkyankeefan! Now in Technicolour!

by Hasan Paliwala on Jan 22, 2011 7:45 AM EST up reply actions

That's a good point.

by SuperT on Jan 22, 2011 12:51 PM EST up reply actions

in Omar's mind, they were good players....

"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"

by feslenraster on Jan 22, 2011 11:13 AM EST up reply actions

So TFA is suggesting that the innate advantages of the Mets, Dodgers, and Cubs

aren’t enough, and that MLB should be helping to make the rich richer? Why does that make sense? To a degree this is a zero sum game. If the league helps the wealthy, big market teams take optimal advantage of their situations, then mid and especially small market teams will compete even less often than they do now.

2010 Mets: 81-81 Pythagorean record. 656 Runs Scored, 652 Runs Allowed.
Damn You, Manuelllllllllllllllllllllll!!!

by Jack Str on Jan 22, 2011 4:54 PM EST reply actions