I'm surprised there's not a thread for this already, because this has been one of the more interesting offseasons that I could remember. Pujols to LA. Prince to Detroit. Florida getting frisky. The Yankees getting pitching. The Rangers getting Yu. The Red Sox getting...Nick Punto? For some reason? My current unbiased top 10 team rankings, based only on current talent and not the fact that they gave a ridiculously long contract to a player without much defensive value: Texas Rangers Philadelphia Phillies Detroit Tigers New York Yankees LA Angels Tampa Bay Rays Atlanta Braves Boston Red Sox San Francisco Giants Florida Marlins
Oakland has signed Manny Ramirez to a minor league contract at the league minimum today. I am not quite sure how I feel about this as I have never been a Ramirez fan. Right now I just hope Oakland can finish at 500, that will be asking a bunch with the Rangers and Angels in the same division.
The A's have a pretty good blog on SB Nation http://www.athleticsnation.com/[url...ng 2 prospects AND eating his salary. Yikes.
Despite Hamilton's recent fall off the wagon, I think he'll have a good year. The whole club really likes him. Napoli is doing well, he's been working on that ankle, which is never fun. Thing about Hamilton is that when he's good he's REALLY really really fucking good...but no one here is sure the good outweighs the potential for some bad shit. Also, CJ is a douche.
He's going from the AL to the NL, to a division that lost 2 of its top 3 hitters to free-agency and the third to a 50 game suspension, where the best offensive team is likely to be the Reds, who got no-hit in the play-offs recently. He can pitch exactly the same as last year and still look twice as good. Hell, they might be able to flip him in July.
From what I've read, the prospects the Yankees ultimately got weren't the ones they originally wanted. All I can say is THANK FUCKING GOD BURNETT IS GONE. I don't think I've ever been this happy to be rid of a player in my lifetime. At least Pavano just sat there hurt while he stole his $40 million and didn't flounder around giving up 7 runs in 4.5 innings every other start. The fact that Pittsburgh is eating $13 mil of his salary is just icing on the cake. Addition by subtraction of the highest order.
The Red Sox are losing Wakefield and Varitek, with both of them retiring. I'll miss Wakefield, simply because it's so fun to watch a knuckleballer. However, when he's off...he's OFF. And it was torture watching Francona let him pitch one inning too many to help the other team get a bigger lead on us, while he was chasing win number 200. Tek? I won't really miss seing his guaranteed inning-ending double plays.
Cosigned. Watching Varitek the last four years has been tough. He's been terrible, but you don't want to see him cut or traded, because of what he means to the franchise. Luckily, he's likely to remain with the team as a coach. Not the best Red Sox player of the era to be sure, but near the top of any Red Sox fan's favorites.
7 pitches. Naps counted SEVEN PITCHES today off of Darvish. I don't even know what to say about this guy but I sure as shit hope he doesn't bomb out after all the money we spent on him.
Aaaand now he's out 2-3 months after fouling a ball off his face during a bunting drill. At least now he'll have something in common with the Pirates' mascot.
From the internets: I don't like it. Its possible that a third place team can make it all the way, and win the WS. Fuck that noise. Secondly. I know there is nothing they can do about it now because of TV contracts and travel days, but how the fuck does the best team in the league have to play its first two games in the playoffs on the road? That's fucked up. If they knew that this was going to happen, why not wait until next year to implement.
Unfortunately, that's not what the owners or the union really care about at this point. What they want to do is create more excitement down the stretch in hopes that more teams are in contention closer to the end of the season. That gives fans of teams on the fringe more reason to go to games. They should have just waited till next year, but obviously if they make things a little unfair for a year and make more money, who really cares, right?
Are you serious? The NBA has a 16 team playoff and the Giants only got in the playoffs only because everybody else in the NFC sucked cock this year.
A division winning team spends the better part of 6 months, playing almost every day beating the shit out everyone else, so they can lose three games in a row and have nothing to show for it? If you're going to let 10 teams into the playoffs, make the season 50 fucking games. The NFL plays 18 games, the NBA plays 82, and then they play a tournament to hoist the champion. The NBA has the most predictable playoff system, and you can usually pick who's going to win a series. You can argue that the best team wins in the NFL playoffs, although they have a fair share of upsets. But they play for 5 months, and even at that, they don't play everyday. MLB has always been a marathon, and you don't decide a marathon by a sprint at then end. And if its a sprint, it should be a sprint to get into the playoffs. I don't know enough about the other sports to argue the merits of their playoff system, because baseball is sort of a different animal. But I get sick of watching the best teams in baseball spend 6 months proving that they are the best, then having a 3,5, or 7 games to decide their fate. There are two options for me--- either play a shorter season, or have less teams in the playoffs. 2011 Best records: Yankees vs. Phillies World Series: Rangers vs. Cardinals 2010 Best records: Rays vs. Phillies World Series: Rangers vs. Giants 2009 Best records: Yankees vs. Dodgers World Series: Yankees vs. Phillies 2008 Best records: Angels vs. Cubs World Series: Rays vs. Phillies 2007 Best records: Red Sox or Indians vs. Diamondbacks World Series: Red Sox vs. Rockies 2006 Best records: Yankees vs. Mets World Series: Tigers vs. Cardinals 2005 Best records: White Sox vs. Cardinals World Series: White Sox vs. Astros 2004 Best records: Yankees vs. Cardinals World Series: Red Sox vs. Cardinals 2003 Best records: Yankees vs. Braves World Series: Yankees vs. Marlins 2002 Best records: Yankees or A's vs. Braves World Series: Angels vs. Giants 2001 Best records: Mariners vs. Astros or Cardinals World Series: Yankees. vs. Diamondbacks 2000 Best records: White Sox vs. Giants World Series: Yankees vs. Mets
In my opinion, if a team loses 3 games in a row and they lose the division because of that, they weren't a good team. A good team wins when they have to. But that's a discussion for another day. At first you were arguing that you didn't want a 3rd place team winning the WS, which, I think is stupid. Everybody I know would rather watch a 3, 5, or 7 playoff series instead of game 86 of the regular season in a series that may ultimately mean nothing. Playoff baseball is way more exciting for the casual fan. With all the entertainment options out there nowadays, MLB needs to do everything it can to continue growing. Now you're arguing that by having more playoff teams, the regular season means less than it did before. I agree with that. If having more playoff teams also means less regular season baseball, I'd be all for it. I, and a lot of other people, simply don't have 3 hours every other day to watch millionaires adjust their cup after every swing. The reason why the NFL and NCAA football is such a huge moneymaker is because a season can hinge on a single game. The only time that applies in baseball is when a player pulls a hamstring running around the base paths. If MLB had any sense, they'd chop the season down and schedule 3 game series over the weekend. This way you get less injuries to your star players, more meaning to the regular season, and way more fan interest.
So would you be in favor of returning to the 1950s style, where the was only the World Series and no additional playoffs? Just two pennant winners facing off? And if yes, why not eliminate the World Series and the two leagues all together, and declare a single standings leader to be the champion? I'm guessing that a big part of the answer lies in the fact that you have a personality trait that I share to a certain extent: an anti-underdog bias. In essence, I'm guessing it intellectually bothers you that the best team does not win the championship sometimes. The only other people I've heard express this opinion are my college roommate and Malcolm Gladwell, but I totally see where you're coming from. To use a cross-sport parallel, this is part of why things like the 2008 Super Bowl stick in my craw. It just seems wrong. You know that if you replayed that game 100 times, the Patriots win 95 of them. One should be able to make a plausible if not necessarily definitive argument as to the champion being the best contestant in the field, and that isn't always the case. This is the integral charm of playoffs, that these sorts of improbably events can happen and the season can change on them. While I'm more on the fence than you seem to be as to the appropriate balance, it's something I feel the appeal of less than a lot of other people. Something about the process seems unfair.
So you're saying all the teams that I posted which had the best regular season records weren't good teams? You can make a point that they weren't the best teams because of they could just be beating up on their shitty divisions... But they all were good teams. As their record indicates. It wasn't like last years Patriots who didn't beat any teams that weren't over .500. (don't hold me to those stats) The difference is that the Pats played 18 games, and baseball teams play 162 so the cream should rise to the top more often. Which they do. And every year the best team in baseball loses a series or gets swept, so according to this math, they aren't good teams? That's nonsensical in baseball terms. Good teams lose every week. Hell, great teams lose 62 games a year. I agree with most of the rest of what you said, and understand where you are coming from, I am just a different baseball fan than you. During the season I can watch up to two or three games a day. (DVR and Tivo makes it real easy) Whatever they do with the playoffs, they need to shorten the season. Its ridiculous. No, I don't think we need to go back to the 50's style, but a good balance should be struck between the two. Ten teams is too much, 6 is about right. Or somewhere around there. If you're gonna play 162 games, then winning the division should mean something. If you want to chop the season down to 100, sure, we should have a 10 team playoff. (that's never gonna happen though) I don't know really who I root for (other than my team) most of the time, because I don't keep track and like most other people there are certain teams I'll never root for, and others that I couldn't care less about,,,, but once again my point is that it gets back to the the season length. If your team toils through 162 games, and wins the division, it should not have to have its season hang in the balance over 5 games. If they only played a 50 game season and lose to the lesser team, well so be it, there wasn't as much invested. There's also the differential between a good regular season team, and a team that is a good postseason team. A good regular season team may not have a great 1 or 2, but they may have a very reliable 5 man rotation. A good postseason team has 2 great 1 and 2's, and can whip your ass in the short haul. There's a difference.