2008 MLB Season

[IJ Reilly]

I don't understand why the flagship franchises have not produced, The Dodgers and Giants. It can't be payroll or ownership, well maybe ownership. But why do these teams have such a hard time winning every year.

In the case of the Dodgers, it's mainly about ownership. The team used to be run like a family business, because it was a family business. During those years they won, and often. But then they got sold out to a corporation. For them it was all about revenues. They let arguably the best farm organization in baseball go completely to pot. They chased off good people. The current owners, at least they seem to be trying, but it takes a long time to put an organization like the Dodgers were back together again, and I'm not sure they've got what it takes. It would help if they actually lived out here.

But you could ask the same question about a lot of franchises. What about the Cubs? And the White Sox -- people forget maybe, but that team was completely out of the running for decades. Boston, too.

 

[thechidz]

totally. Thats a sensational 1-2. take them with Braun and Fielder in the middle of the line-up. If the Brewers make the postseason, they go all the way. The problem for them might be getting there. They also need to fix up the bullpen a bit. Unless they feel comfy with Mota and Gagne. NEWS FLASH MILUAKEE: YOU'RE NOT THE DODGERS AND IT'S NOT 2004.

Im not comfy with Mota at all. I wish Yost would stop putting him in. He has blown too many for us this year. Gagne is looking better after rehabbing his injury and I like Torres lots and lots. Like Billy Hall said, the entire team is contributing right now, which makes for a winner. and the current streak shows whats up. theres a long way to go but right now the crew is firing on all cylinders. look out scrubbies next week!

 

[pachyderm]

i don't consider 81-81 a winning record. i consider it .500. and talking about that, someone suggested if they finish under .500, the nl west winner shouldn't go to the playoffs and be replaced with the next wild card team due to bad play.

why not? someone else posted the same sentiment. you've won as many as you've lost. and not lost more... how is that a losing record?

 

[benmrii]

why not? someone else posted the same sentiment. you've won as many as you've lost. and not lost more... how is that a losing record?

It's not a winning or an losing record. Winning record = won more than lost. Losing record = lost more than won.

It's even, they broke even, they're at .500... however you want to put it. But "winning record," no.

 

[pachyderm]

It's not a winning or an losing record. Winning record = won more than lost. Losing record = lost more than won.

It's even, they broke even, they're at .500... however you want to put it. But "winning record," no.

i disagree. it is a winning record.

 

[pachyderm]

In the case of the Dodgers, it's mainly about ownership. The team used to be run like a family business, because it was a family business. During those years they won, and often. But then they got sold out to a corporation. For them it was all about revenues. They let arguably the best farm organization in baseball go completely to pot. They chased off good people. The current owners, at least they seem to be trying, but it takes a long time to put an organization like the Dodgers were back together again, and I'm not sure they've got what it takes. It would help if they actually lived out here.

But you could ask the same question about a lot of franchises. What about the Cubs? And the White Sox -- people forget maybe, but that team was completely out of the running for decades. Boston, too.

i have no idea what is up with the giants and zito. some sort of "after bonds hang over"...

 

[benmrii]

i disagree. it is a winning record.

Yeah, there's no real argument to it since there's no specific definition for "winning record" with respect to baseball... at least not that I know of. I learned that "winning record" is the same as "winning a majority," meaning 50% + 1, so that's what I've always gone by.

Just so long as you don't start touting a 40-122 season as a "winning record" because they won "some," I won't hold you to the fire.

 

[aloofman]

I don't understand why the flagship franchises have not produced, The Dodgers and Giants. It can't be payroll or ownership, well maybe ownership. But why do these teams have such a hard time winning every year.

Why did the Yankees suck for almost 10 years in the late '60s and early '70s? Or in the 1980s? It happens. Sometimes big payrolls don't get it done. I think that a lot of people overestimate how good the Yankees have been in most of the last 15 years. Obviously there were some great teams in there, but I'd argue that at least two of those World Series titles don't happen without Mariano Rivera. In fact, I'd wager they don't make the playoffs in several of those years without him. He's the key to their recent success. Without him the Yankees might be the Braves of the AL. I think people often ignore how little separates the top teams from the near-playoff teams.

In the case of the Dodgers, it's mainly about ownership. The team used to be run like a family business, because it was a family business. During those years they won, and often. But then they got sold out to a corporation. For them it was all about revenues. They let arguably the best farm organization in baseball go completely to pot. They chased off good people. The current owners, at least they seem to be trying, but it takes a long time to put an organization like the Dodgers were back together again, and I'm not sure they've got what it takes. It would help if they actually lived out here.

The Fox people made several crucial mistakes: trading away their prospects for little in return, kicking out Piazza just so they could say they're in charge, and alienating long-time Dodgers (especially Scioscia).

But in all fairness, the Dodgers' lack of recent success began under Peter O'Malley. The family business signed Daryll Strawberry and Eric Davis, traded away John Wetteland and Pedro Martinez, couldn't pick a stable manager, and couldn't build on five consecutive ROYs. So it's not as if the World Series titles stopped coming in 1998, but it's definitely true that it's taken a while to dig out of the hole that Fox dug.

 

[benmrii]

Phils and Mets, tied for first, rubber match in about 20 minutes. Moyer against Ollie. Camp game, so the kids are getting settled in at Shea.

C'mon Mets!

 

[IJ Reilly]

The Fox people made several crucial mistakes: trading away their prospects for little in return, kicking out Piazza just so they could say they're in charge, and alienating long-time Dodgers (especially Scioscia).

But in all fairness, the Dodgers' lack of recent success began under Peter O'Malley. The family business signed Daryll Strawberry and Eric Davis, traded away John Wetteland and Pedro Martinez, couldn't pick a stable manager, and couldn't build on five consecutive ROYs. So it's not as if the World Series titles stopped coming in 1998, but it's definitely true that it's taken a while to dig out of the hole that Fox dug.

True story, but I'm not sure how much blame I can lay at the feet of the junior O'Malley. I believe had the team not been sold to Fox that Peter O'Malley would have righted the ship eventually and the drought would have been much shorter. The O'Malleys were a real baseball family, and I think history has shown us that this kind of commitment makes a huge difference over the long haul. The owners have to be people who come out the ballpark every day and want to see their team win, just like the fans do.

 

[MacNut]

Why does MLB allow corporations to own teams. Has it ever worked out.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Why does MLB allow corporations to own teams. Has it ever worked out.

The owners run baseball for their own benefit. They aren't going to do anything that would reduce the market value of their teams.

 

[aloofman]

Why does MLB allow corporations to own teams. Has it ever worked out.

That depends on what you mean by "corporation". Many teams (including those with only one owner) are technically corporations or organized under holding companies so that they can get the legal and tax benefits.

It also depends on what you mean by "worked out". Fox bought the Dodgers as part of a scheme to create a series of regional sports networks and to stop ESPN from doing the same. In that sense purchasing the Dodgers worked very well. On the field, not so much.

And from MLB's point of view, it works out fine. Having teams owned by media conglomerates (of which the Yankees are actually one) gives them major advantages in broadcasting and revenue. The Dodgers were owned by Fox, the Yankees by CBS, and the Angels by Disney. The Cubs are still owned by the Tribune Company and Nintendo owns the Mariners. The Red Sox have the same owner as their broadcaster, similar to the Yankees. I could be wrong, but I think the Mets have done something like that too.

It's not so much whether it's owned by a corporation, but how they manage it, just like all teams. But I think it is true that the smaller the team is withing the rest of the corporation, the less they care about winning.

 

[furcalchick]

Why does MLB allow corporations to own teams. Has it ever worked out.

That depends on what you mean by "corporation". Many teams (including those with only one owner) are technically corporations or organized under holding companies so that they can get the legal and tax benefits.

It also depends on what you mean by "worked out". Fox bought the Dodgers as part of a scheme to create a series of regional sports networks and to stop ESPN from doing the same. In that sense purchasing the Dodgers worked very well. On the field, not so much.

And from MLB's point of view, it works out fine. Having teams owned by media conglomerates (of which the Yankees are actually one) gives them major advantages in broadcasting and revenue. The Dodgers were owned by Fox, the Yankees by CBS, and the Angels by Disney. The Cubs are still owned by the Tribune Company and Nintendo owns the Mariners. The Red Sox have the same owner as their broadcaster, similar to the Yankees. I could be wrong, but I think the Mets have done something like that too.

It's not so much whether it's owned by a corporation, but how they manage it, just like all teams. But I think it is true that the smaller the team is withing the rest of the corporation, the less they care about winning.

time warner, who used to own the braves was just an awful owner. it was like they started caring less for the braves when they bought out turner. that was an example of corporate ownership gone wrong. on the other hand, the marlins are owned by jeffery loria and his buddies and aren't being run well. so it all depends on if the owners care about a winning product.

 

[pachyderm]

Yeah, there's no real argument to it since there's no specific definition for "winning record" with respect to baseball... at least not that I know of. I learned that "winning record" is the same as "winning a majority," meaning 50% + 1, so that's what I've always gone by.

Just so long as you don't start touting a 40-122 season as a "winning record" because they won "some," I won't hold you to the fire.

lol.

honestly, i've heard it called both but i prefer to see it as winning.

 

[thechidz]

benny sheets goin for the sweep in st louis today!!! cant wait for the brew crew vs. scrubs series next week!!!

 

[MacNut]

That depends on what you mean by "corporation". Many teams (including those with only one owner) are technically corporations or organized under holding companies so that they can get the legal and tax benefits.

It also depends on what you mean by "worked out". Fox bought the Dodgers as part of a scheme to create a series of regional sports networks and to stop ESPN from doing the same. In that sense purchasing the Dodgers worked very well. On the field, not so much.

And from MLB's point of view, it works out fine. Having teams owned by media conglomerates (of which the Yankees are actually one) gives them major advantages in broadcasting and revenue. The Dodgers were owned by Fox, the Yankees by CBS, and the Angels by Disney. The Cubs are still owned by the Tribune Company and Nintendo owns the Mariners. The Red Sox have the same owner as their broadcaster, similar to the Yankees. I could be wrong, but I think the Mets have done something like that too.

It's not so much whether it's owned by a corporation, but how they manage it, just like all teams. But I think it is true that the smaller the team is withing the rest of the corporation, the less they care about winning.

CBS just about drove the Yankees into the ground. Steinbrenner bought the team for 10 million and turned it around. What the Yankees are now is its own company, Yankee Global Enterprises LLC. But that is not the same as a big company buying them and running the team to the ground. They built the company around the team.

 

[benmrii]

CBS just about drove the Yankees into the ground. Steinbrenner bought the team for 10 million and turned it around. What the Yankees are now is its own company, Yankee Global Enterprises LLC. But that is not the same as a big company buying them and running the team to the ground. They built the company around the team.

Give it time. Hank will get it down to 10 mil again.

 

[MacNut]

Give it time. Hank will get it down to 10 mil again.

He's got $900 Mill to waste through, I think it will take him time. Hank might look like an ass but he is a smart business man.

 

[benmrii]

He's got $900 Mill to waste through, I think it will take him time. Hank might look like an ass but he is a smart business man.

Even amongst my many Yankees fans friends, you're the first person to say something positive about him to me.

 

[benmrii]

IJ Reilly, this one's for you. This post does not include any excited play by play/during and about the game info.

/sits on hands, waits for three more outs

 

[MacNut]

Even amongst my many Yankees fans friends, you're the first person to say something positive about him to me.

Hank is a lot like his father, open mouth before he thinks. But he is a successful business man. There was a story on him on ESPN about a month back that really explains who he is. I the long run I think he will be god for the team.

 

[benmrii]

For the first time in over three months the Mets are first in the NL East.

Ollie didn't get the win but had a fantastic game. 12 K's, only one (intentional) walk and one ER in 7 2/3. Mets broke the tie with Delgado's 2 RBI smack in the 8th.

 

[zioxide]

Even amongst my many Yankees fans friends, you're the first person to say something positive about him to me.

Hank is great.. for comedic relief. Oh, and the fact that he now wants to trade away prospects for more washed up veterans. (Didn't you pay attention for the last 7 years, Hank?) I can't wait for the Yankees to be the worst team in the AL East in a few years.

 

[aloofman]

Hank is a lot like his father, open mouth before he thinks. But he is a successful business man. There was a story on him on ESPN about a month back that really explains who he is. I the long run I think he will be god for the team.

That doesn't mean much considering he's the son of a successful businessman. When you have a rich dad with connections backing you up, you'd have to be a complete screwup to not end up rich too.

CBS just about drove the Yankees into the ground. Steinbrenner bought the team for 10 million and turned it around. What the Yankees are now is its own company, Yankee Global Enterprises LLC. But that is not the same as a big company buying them and running the team to the ground. They built the company around the team.

And I'm saying that Yankee Global Enterprises LLC is a corporation. Obviously it depends on the corporation. So asking why MLB allows teams to be owned by corporations is not the question that gets to the crux of the problem.