• What’s The Reasonable Amount Of Time To Stink?

    Posted by on December 20th, 2012 · Comments (75)

    Some major league baseball teams have periods, in their history, where they stink for a very long time. But, what’s acceptable here? How long is it OK for a team to stink?

    Personally, I think the longest that a team should stink is six years. After a couple of years of stinking, you should be able to put a plan in place that you get you back to being a very good team within four years time (if not sooner).

    And, if you’re team stinks for more than 6 years in a row, then you’re really doing something wrong.

    What’s your opinion on this?

    Comments on What’s The Reasonable Amount Of Time To Stink?

    1. MJ Recanati
      December 20th, 2012 | 1:00 pm

      I don’t think there can be an hard and fast rule on this. I think a team can be rebuilt effectively in a four-to-six year window but, as always, it depends on a lot of other factors (health being the most important one).

      The Mets are going to stink this year, likely making it the fifth year in a row where they’ll fail to finish higher than fourth in their division or achieve a .500 record. Their owner’s financial and legal problems obviously has a lot to do with it so that’s another mitigating factor.

    2. Ricketson
      December 20th, 2012 | 1:08 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      I don’t think there can be an hard and fast rule on this.

      You don’t think so?

    3. December 20th, 2012 | 1:28 pm

      Is it safe/fair to say, that, if a team that sucks still sucks more than six years later, then it’s the fault of ownership and/or the front office?

    4. MJ Recanati
      December 20th, 2012 | 1:41 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      Is it safe/fair to say, that, if a team that sucks still sucks more than six years later, then it’s the fault of ownership and/or the front office?

      Not if there are mitigating circumstances such as a bunch of injuries or a star player is suspended, etc. Sometimes things are beyond individual control and cannot be planned for.

    5. MJ Recanati
      December 20th, 2012 | 1:41 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      You don’t think so?

      Did I stutter?

    6. December 20th, 2012 | 2:04 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      If the difference between stinking and not is tied to one player on your team, doesn’t that say something about the ability of the front office, and the owner, to do their job?

      And, by stinking, I mean losing more than 85 games in a season.

    7. MJ Recanati
      December 20th, 2012 | 2:47 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      the difference between stinking and not is tied to one player on your team, doesn’t that say something about the ability of the front office, and the owner, to do their job?

      Not necessarily. Say, for example, a team had Bonds in the prime of his PED phase (average 10.5 bWAR/season) but otherwise had a young team of rookies and second year players. Losing a player worth 10 wins above replacement on a terrible team could easily push a team from 75 wins down to a 100-loss season.

      Look at the Royals as an example. Two years ago, they had the best farm system in baseball. Two years later, Hosmer/Moustakas haven’t progressed and Montgomery/Myers/Odorizzi were traded. We can blame Dayton Moore for a lot but he can’t control the fact that prospects — even exceptionally good ones by all accounts — don’t always pan out.

    8. Raf
      December 20th, 2012 | 5:46 pm

      I would think that with the resources available (free agents, draft, international free agents), it shouldn’t take more than 5-6 years for a team to stink. The key is to be able to assess what you have and adapt and adjust. Injuries happen, prospects flaming out happen, but IMO it takes a special brand of incompetence to put together a run like the Pirates have (not finishing .500 since 1992).

    9. Ricketson
      December 20th, 2012 | 6:07 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Their owner’s financial and legal problems obviously has a lot to do with it so that’s another mitigating factor.

      Obviously.

    10. Ricketson
      December 20th, 2012 | 6:56 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      Is it safe/fair to say, that, if a team that sucks still sucks more than six years later, then it’s the fault of ownership and/or the front office?

      Arizona: franchise awarded March, 1995; 1st game played March, 1998; 1st World Series title October, 2001 – 6 yrs. 7 mos. Florida: franchise awarded in June, 1991; 1st game played March, 1993; 1st World Series title October, 1997 – 6 yrs. 4 mos. Oct., 1998 – last place finish; 2002 – new ownership; 2nd World Series title October, 2003.

    11. KPOcala
      December 20th, 2012 | 7:06 pm

      Four years, when your 55. 6 years if your 25 ;)

    12. KPOcala
      December 20th, 2012 | 7:09 pm

      BTW, is there a number of minor league affiliates that teams are allowed to have? It seems that the numbers have come down dramatically in the last 35 years, but it could be my memory that’s coming down…….

    13. McMillan
      December 20th, 2012 | 7:18 pm

      Raf wrote:

      IMO it takes a special brand of incompetence to put together a run like the Pirates have (not finishing .500 since 1992).

      “According to [an] issue of Bloomberg Businessweek, the Tampa Bay Rays… rank as the “smartest spenders” in pro sports based on a calculation of payroll data and regular and postseason wins over the past five seasons. The Yankees? How about #98 out of 122 franchises in MLB, the NFL, NBA and NHL.” The Pirates? How about #23 out of the 122 franchises. http://waswatching.com/2012/08/30/yanks-are-98th-dumbest-spending-pro-team-out-of-122/

    14. Ricketson
      December 20th, 2012 | 7:28 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      The Pirates? How about #23 out of the 122 franchises.

      So payroll is a “factor?”

    15. McMillan
      December 20th, 2012 | 7:35 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      So payroll is a “factor?”

      Did I stutter?

    16. KPOcala
      December 20th, 2012 | 8:55 pm

      Bloomberg Businessweek, that’s a great source, I suppose if your interested in running a ball club. As a fan, BFD.

    17. Raf
      December 21st, 2012 | 12:02 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      IMO it takes a special brand of incompetence to put together a run like the Pirates have (not finishing .500 since 1992).
      “According to [an] issue of Bloomberg Businessweek, the Tampa Bay Rays… rank as the “smartest spenders” in pro sports based on a calculation of payroll data and regular and postseason wins over the past five seasons. The Yankees? How about #98 out of 122 franchises in MLB, the NFL, NBA and NHL.” The Pirates? How about #23 out of the 122 franchises. http://waswatching.com/2012/08/30/yanks-are-98th-dumbest-spending-pro-team-out-of-122/

      So?

      http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2012.shtml

      NYY: 95 wins, 1st place AL East, best record in AL
      TBR: 90 wins, 3rd place AL East, 5th best record in AL

      Raf wrote:

      Meanwhile, Derek Jeter has more playoff appearances than the Tampa Bay franchise has existed…

      I’ll take dumb spending and perpetual playoff appearances, thankyouverymuch 8)

      http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2012.shtml

      PIT: 79 wins, 4th place NL Central, 10th best record in the league, haven’t finished over .500 since 1992.

    18. Evan3457
      December 21st, 2012 | 8:48 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      @What’s The Reasonable Amount Of Time To Stink?

      No more than 48 hours, if you don’t go out, or see anyone. Then you have to take a shower.

    19. Evan3457
      December 21st, 2012 | 8:50 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      IMO it takes a special brand of incompetence to put together a run like the Pirates have (not finishing .500 since 1992).
      “According to [an] issue of Bloomberg Businessweek, the Tampa Bay Rays… rank as the “smartest spenders” in pro sports based on a calculation of payroll data and regular and postseason wins over the past five seasons. The Yankees? How about #98 out of 122 franchises in MLB, the NFL, NBA and NHL.” The Pirates? How about #23 out of the 122 franchises. http://waswatching.com/2012/08/30/yanks-are-98th-dumbest-spending-pro-team-out-of-122/

      So the Pirares are smarter than the Yanks.
      I can tell by the number of titles they’ve won and playoffs they’ve appeared in the last, oh, 20, seasons.

    20. Evan3457
      December 21st, 2012 | 8:51 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Steve L. wrote:
      @What’s The Reasonable Amount Of Time To Stink?
      No more than 48 hours, if you don’t go out, or see anyone. Then you have to take a shower.

      Well, OK, if you’re alone, and you have the flu, maybe 72 hours.

    21. McMillan
      December 21st, 2012 | 9:36 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I can tell by the number of titles they’ve won and playoffs they’ve appeared in the last, oh, 20, seasons.

      The team spending only $48,689,783 on its payroll in a year N.Y. spent $209,081,577 and did not make the playoffs either – 2008, for example, or having a payroll above $55,000,000 only once since 1998 while N.Y. has had the highest payroll in M.L.B. each year, or having a valuation 28th out of 30 major league teams while N.Y. has a valuation 1st out of 30 major league teams just might, have something to do with this…

    22. McMillan
      December 21st, 2012 | 9:42 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Dumb spending…

      Thankyouverymuch. And I’m sure the fans in Pittsburgh would take the “dumb spending” you referred to as well, and a lot of other cities, for that matter – if the revenue was there to facilitate it.

    23. Ricketson
      December 21st, 2012 | 9:57 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      The team spending only $48,689,783 on its payroll in a year N.Y. spent $209,081,577 and did not make the playoffs either – 2008, for example, or having a payroll above $55,000,000 only once since 1998 while N.Y. has had the highest payroll in M.L.B. each year, or having a valuation 28th out of 30 major league teams while N.Y. has a valuation 1st out of 30 major league teams just might, have something to do with this…

      As Tom Hagen said, “They might, they just might.”

    24. McMillan
      December 21st, 2012 | 10:14 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      As Tom Hagen said, “They might, they just might.”

      And as Brian Cashman said about Kei Igawa, “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.”

    25. Ricketson
      December 21st, 2012 | 10:32 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      And as Brian Cashman said about Kei Igawa, “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.”

      And as Brian Cashman said about Louise Neathway, “She was beautiful! She was young. She is innocent until proven guilty. She was the greatest piece of ass I ever had, and I’ve had’em all over the world!”

    26. Raf
      December 21st, 2012 | 10:32 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Thankyouverymuch. And I’m sure the fans in Pittsburgh would take the “dumb spending” you referred to as well, and a lot of other cities, for that matter – if the revenue was there to facilitate it.

      The A’s and Twins and other small market teams do just fine. Even the Royals managed to have a couple of .500+ seasons since the last time the Pirates were relevant.

      And the Pirates have done their fair share of dumb spending; Jason Kendall, Derek Bell & Jeromy Burnitz immediately comes to mind. Other teams have done dumb spending as well. :P

      The team spending only $48,689,783 on its payroll in a year N.Y. spent $209,081,577 and did not make the playoffs either – 2008

      So?

      2008
      NYY: 89-73
      PIT: 67-95

      Still doesn’t negate that the Yanks made the playoffs from 1995-2007, a streak started 3 seasons after the Pirates were even relevant.

      Since 1993 only the Royals and Pirates have not made the playoffs. 2 teams out of 30. The Marlins, Rockies, Diamondbacks and Rays started from the ground up and made it to the World Series. The Pirates haven’t even had a winning season.

      You can try to make it about payroll if you want, but you’d be incorrect… again :P

      But have at it
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfUYuIVbFg0

      :D

    27. McMillan
      December 21st, 2012 | 10:40 pm

      Raf wrote:

      I’ll take dumb spending and perpetual playoff appearances…

      Perhaps if the spending had been less dumb, there might have been as many if not more world championships attached to those “perpetual playoff appearances” as Boston, San Francisco, and St. Louis have had in the last 10 years…

    28. McMillan
      December 21st, 2012 | 10:42 pm

      Raf wrote:

      You can try to make it about payroll if you want, but you’d be incorrect… again

      http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/

    29. McMillan
      December 21st, 2012 | 10:50 pm

      Raf wrote:

      2008
      NYY: 89-73
      PIT: 67-95

      N.Y.: $2,349,231.20 in dumb spending per win.
      Pit.: $726,713.18 in dumb spending per win.

    30. Raf
      December 21st, 2012 | 10:51 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Perhaps if the spending had been less dumb, there might have been as many if not more world championships attached to those “perpetual playoff appearances” as Boston, San Francisco, and St. Louis have had in the last 10 years…

      Maybe, maybe not. The Red Sox are still waiting for their 2011 World Championship.

      You would think that Boston, San Francisco, and St. Louis would have a better success rate in the last 10 years, if they knew what it took to win a World Series.

    31. McMillan
      December 21st, 2012 | 10:55 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      “According to [an] issue of Bloomberg Businessweek, the Tampa Bay Rays… rank as the “smartest spenders” in pro sports based on a calculation of payroll data and regular and postseason wins over the past five seasons. The Yankees? How about #98 out of 122 franchises in MLB, the NFL, NBA and NHL.” The Pirates? How about #23 out of the 122 franchises. http://waswatching.com/2012/08/30/yanks-are-98th-dumbest-spending-pro-team-out-of-122/

      Raf wrote:

      The A’s and Twins and other small market teams do just fine. Even the Royals managed to have a couple of .500+ seasons since the last time the Pirates were relevant.

      Oakland A’s: no. 48; Minnesota Twins: no. 83; Kansas City Royals: no. 63; N.Y. Yankees: no. 98.

    32. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 11:57 am

      Raf wrote:

      But have at it
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfUYuIVbFg0

      Just an FYI: some people do not look at a Youtube video you’ve offered a second time after having looked at a first.

    33. Ricketson
      December 22nd, 2012 | 12:04 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Just an FYI: some people do not look at a Youtube video you’ve offered a second time after having looked at a first.

      Another Tom Hagen quote?

    34. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 12:09 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      I don’t think there can be an hard and fast rule on this.

      Apparently, there is:
      Evan3457 wrote:

      [You] can tell by the number of titles they’ve won and playoffs they’ve appeared in the last, oh, 20, seasons.

    35. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 12:14 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Perhaps if the spending had been less dumb, there might have been as many if not more world championships attached to those “perpetual playoff appearances” as Boston, San Francisco, and St. Louis have had in the last 10 years…

      Raf wrote:

      Maybe, maybe not. The Red Sox are still waiting for their 2011 World Championship… You would think that Boston, San Francisco, and St. Louis would have a better success rate in the last 10 years, if they knew what it took to win a World Series.

      That makes a lot of sense.

    36. Ricketson
      December 22nd, 2012 | 12:21 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      That makes a lot of sense.

      Matt Hooper?

    37. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 12:38 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      I don’t think there can be an hard and fast rule on this.

      According to Louis Neathway, Cashman has a hard and fast rule with women… Bad dum bum.

    38. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 1:12 pm

      Raf wrote:

      The A’s and Twins and other small market teams do just fine. Even the Royals managed to have a couple of .500+ seasons since the last time the Pirates were relevant.

      Total payroll, 1998 – 2012:
      Pit.:$608,406,146.00
      K.C.: $703,130,768.00
      Oak.: $747,838,225.00
      Min.: $854,602,205.00

    39. Ricketson
      December 22nd, 2012 | 1:32 pm

      @ McMillan:
      I’ve never seen anyone argue against himself more…

    40. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 1:47 pm

      @ Ricketson:
      There is some consistency here: Pittsburgh’s front office stinks because the team does not make the playoffs every year, and the fact that the team has had the lowest payroll in baseball since 1998 is irrelevant. Cashman does not stink because the team does make the playoffs almost every year, and the fact that the team has the highest payroll in baseball since 1998 is irrelevant.

    41. Raf
      December 22nd, 2012 | 4:13 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      There is some consistency here: Pittsburgh’s front office stinks because the team does not make the playoffs every year

      No, Pittsburgh front office stinks because the Pirates haven’t finished at or over .500 since 1992. That they don’t make the playoffs is ancillary. :P

      and the fact that the team has had the lowest payroll in baseball since 1998 is irrelevant.

      Considering the fluctuations in team payrolls from year to year, and that the A’s have finished over .500 and made the playoffs with smaller payrolls than the Pirates, yeah, I’d say it’s irrelevant. But I’ll give you a little credit and say that at the very least, payroll doesn’t mean as much as you’d like it to mean. ;)

    42. Ricketson
      December 22nd, 2012 | 4:22 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      There is some consistency here: Pittsburgh’s front office stinks because the team does not make the playoffs every year, and the fact that the team has had the lowest payroll in baseball since 1998 is irrelevant. Cashman does not stink because the team does make the playoffs almost every year, and the fact that the team has the highest payroll in baseball since 1998 is irrelevant.

      Yep. The most valuable franchise with the highest revenues in recent years and the the least valuable franchise with the lowest revenues in the same years at times.

    43. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 4:26 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Yep. The most valuable franchise with the highest revenues in recent years and the the least valuable franchise with the lowest revenues in the same years at times.

      Your logic and reason have no place here! Be gone!

    44. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 4:31 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Considering the fluctuations in team payrolls from year to year, and that the A’s have finished over .500 and made the playoffs with smaller payrolls than the Pirates, yeah, I’d say it’s irrelevant. But I’ll give you a little credit and say that at the very least, payroll doesn’t mean as much as you’d like it to mean.

      And hypotheticals about P.E.D. usage, injuries, and suspensions have more relevance to the discussion?

    45. Ricketson
      December 22nd, 2012 | 4:37 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      According to Louis Neathway, Cashman has a hard and fast rule with women… Bad dum bum.

      Is this a spelling mistake or an alias of Louise Neathway I was unaware of?

    46. Ricketson
      December 22nd, 2012 | 6:22 pm

      Raf wrote:

      But I’ll give you a little credit and say that at the very least, payroll doesn’t mean as much as you’d like it to mean.

      How is Baltimore’s ownership and/or front office in the “post-Ripken” era evaluated with and without looking at its payroll, for example? What else do you look at?

    47. Evan3457
      December 22nd, 2012 | 6:25 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I can tell by the number of titles they’ve won and playoffs they’ve appeared in the last, oh, 20, seasons.
      The team spending only $48,689,783 on its payroll in a year N.Y. spent $209,081,577 and did not make the playoffs either – 2008, for example, or having a payroll above $55,000,000 only once since 1998 while N.Y. has had the highest payroll in M.L.B. each year, or having a valuation 28th out of 30 major league teams while N.Y. has a valuation 1st out of 30 major league teams just might, have something to do with this…

      That’s right, cite the one year in the last 18 that they didn’t make the playoffs as evidence they’re no smarter…

      Lookit, the point is, the Yanks spend a lot of money because they have the resources to, and it seems to be a winning strategy, at least up until now. To me, if your purpose is to win enough to make the post-season and give your team a shot at winning it all, that seems pretty smart.

    48. Evan3457
      December 22nd, 2012 | 6:30 pm

      Oh, and dollars per win, it seems to me, is quite a silly way to go about it, because the wins between, say, 88 and 95, are a heckuva lot more valuable than the wins between, say, 68 and 75.

      In fact, if this were a MasterCard commercial, those wins between 88 and 95, every season, would be damn near…priceless.

    49. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 7:02 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      How is Baltimore’s ownership and/or front office in the “post-Ripken” era evaluated with and without looking at its payroll, for example? What else do you look at?

      You can not expect an answer to this question or any relating to payroll from most people on record as supporting Brian “The Stalking Horse” Cashman, especially when the team does not have a proven veteran catcher or right-handed power hitting outfielder at this stage of The Stalking Horse’s “winter program.”

    50. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 7:16 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      That’s right, cite the one year in the last 18 that they didn’t make the playoffs as evidence they’re no smarter…

      I believe more evidence was cited.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Lookit, the point is, the Yanks spend a lot of money because they have the resources to, and it seems to be a winning strategy, at least up until now.

      “[A]t least up until now!” LOL!
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Oh, and dollars per win, it seems to me, is quite a silly way to go about it, because the wins between, say, 88 and 95, are a heckuva lot more valuable than the wins between, say, 68 and 75.

      I was not completely serious, although the fact is not completely silly either…
      Evan3457 wrote:

      In fact, if this were a MasterCard commercial, those wins between 88 and 95, every season, would be damn near…priceless.

      “[A]t least up until now” is damn near priceless…

    51. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 7:36 pm

      @ Raf:
      Here you go, Raf:Evan3457 wrote:

      In fact, if this were a MasterCard commercial, those wins between 88 and 95, every season, would be damn near…priceless.

    52. Raf
      December 22nd, 2012 | 7:54 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      How is Baltimore’s ownership and/or front office in the “post-Ripken” era evaluated with and without looking at its payroll, for example? What else do you look at?

      It’s evaluated the same way it was evaluated during the Rikpen era and pre Ripken era; you look at the roster, evaluating the team’s offense, defense, and pitching.

    53. Raf
      December 22nd, 2012 | 8:02 pm
    54. Raf
      December 22nd, 2012 | 8:03 pm
    55. Ricketson
      December 22nd, 2012 | 8:20 pm

      Raf wrote:

      It’s evaluated the same way it was evaluated during the Rikpen era and pre Ripken era; you look at the roster, evaluating the team’s offense, defense, and pitching.

      You didn’t answer the question. The team’s offense, defense, and pitching represented a team that lost at least 84 games from 2003-08, or 6 years, if I recall correctly. In others word it “stunk” for the purposes of this discussion and in terms of its record of wins and losses. How can the following question be answered for the Baltimore Orioles from 2003-08, without looking at the team’s payroll for that window of time?
      Steve L. wrote:

      Is it safe/fair to say, that, if a team that sucks still sucks more than six years later, then it’s the fault of ownership and/or the front office?

      The Balitmore Orioles sucked for approx. six years. Is it safe/fair to say that it was the fault of the ownership and/or front office without looking at the team’s payroll? If so, how?

    56. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 8:34 pm

      Raf wrote:

      @ McMillan:
      Here you go;
      http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/diamond-dollars-the-economics-of-winning-in-baseball-part-1/

      Thanks for the article. Is this related to a previous post on this discussion in some direct way?

    57. Raf
      December 22nd, 2012 | 9:18 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      You didn’t answer the question.

      Yes I did.

      The team’s offense, defense, and pitching represented a team that lost at least 84 games from 2003-08, or 6 years, if I recall correctly. In others word it “stunk” for the purposes of this discussion and in terms of its record of wins and losses.

      Yeah, and? You look at the roster to see why the team stunk. If the pitching, defense and offense stunk, then you look to address those areas.

      How can the following question be answered for the Baltimore Orioles from 2003-08, without looking at the team’s payroll for that window of time?

      By looking at the roster. There were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success.

      McMillan wrote:

      Thanks for the article. Is this related to a previous post on this discussion in some direct way?

      Yes.

    58. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 9:35 pm

      @ Ricketson:
      McMillan wrote:

      You can not expect an answer to this question or any relating to payroll from most people on record as supporting Brian “The Stalking Horse” Cashman, especially when the team does not have a proven veteran catcher or right-handed power hitting outfielder at this stage of The Stalking Horse’s “winter program.”

      Raf wrote:

      It’s evaluated the same way it was evaluated during the Rikpen era and pre Ripken era; you look at the roster, evaluating the team’s offense, defense, and pitching.

      Ricketson wrote:

      You didn’t answer the question.

      Raf wrote:

      Yes I did.

      LOL. I told you that you wouldn’t get an answer…

    59. Ricketson
      December 22nd, 2012 | 10:32 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      LOL. I told you that you wouldn’t get an answer…

      To the contrary: I got an an answer…

    60. Ricketson
      December 22nd, 2012 | 10:33 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      The Balitmore Orioles sucked for approx. six years. Is it safe/fair to say that it was the fault of the ownership and/or front office without looking at the team’s payroll? If so, how?

      Raf wrote:

      By looking at the roster. There were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success.

      Didn’t you just look at the team’s payroll (“there were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success”)?

    61. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 10:39 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Didn’t you just look at the team’s payroll (“there were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success”)?

      Well done.

    62. Raf
      December 22nd, 2012 | 11:28 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Didn’t you just look at the team’s payroll (“there were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success”)?

      The point is to dismiss the payroll as your focus. You look at the roster and the production of the players on the roster and you make changes. What the O’s have spent or are spending isn’t particularly relevant.

      You and McMillan keep trying to tie a team’s successes and failures to payroll, and are doing a spectacular job at failing at it. :P

      The Pirates suck, and have sucked because they’ve done a poor job of evaluating talent, not because they are or aren’t spending money. But nice try at the “gotcha” tho ;)

    63. Evan3457
      December 23rd, 2012 | 12:49 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      That’s right, cite the one year in the last 18 that they didn’t make the playoffs as evidence they’re no smarter…
      I believe more evidence was cited.

      No, actually, 2008 was the only year cited by you.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Lookit, the point is, the Yanks spend a lot of money because they have the resources to, and it seems to be a winning strategy, at least up until now.
      “[A]t least up until now!” LOL!

      What’s to laugh at? I can’t predict the future. Neither can you, by the way.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      Oh, and dollars per win, it seems to me, is quite a silly way to go about it, because the wins between, say, 88 and 95, are a heckuva lot more valuable than the wins between, say, 68 and 75.
      I was not completely serious, although the fact is not completely silly either…
      Evan3457 wrote:
      In fact, if this were a MasterCard commercial, those wins between 88 and 95, every season, would be damn near…priceless.
      “[A]t least up until now” is damn near priceless…

      I still don’t see what’s to laugh at…yet.

    64. Evan3457
      December 23rd, 2012 | 12:51 am

      Ricketson wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      It’s evaluated the same way it was evaluated during the Rikpen era and pre Ripken era; you look at the roster, evaluating the team’s offense, defense, and pitching.
      You didn’t answer the question. The team’s offense, defense, and pitching represented a team that lost at least 84 games from 2003-08, or 6 years, if I recall correctly. In others word it “stunk” for the purposes of this discussion and in terms of its record of wins and losses. How can the following question be answered for the Baltimore Orioles from 2003-08, without looking at the team’s payroll for that window of time?
      Steve L. wrote:
      Is it safe/fair to say, that, if a team that sucks still sucks more than six years later, then it’s the fault of ownership and/or the front office?
      The Balitmore Orioles sucked for approx. six years. Is it safe/fair to say that it was the fault of the ownership and/or front office without looking at the team’s payroll? If so, how?

      Well, then if all it takes is spending a ton of money, why didn’t the O’s spend a ton of money?

    65. McMillan
      December 23rd, 2012 | 5:22 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Didn’t you just look at the team’s payroll (“there were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success”)?

      What happened to the coup de grâce?

    66. Ricketson
      December 23rd, 2012 | 5:30 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      How can the following question be answered for the Baltimore Orioles from 2003-08, without looking at the team’s payroll for that window of time?

      Steve L. wrote:

      Is it safe/fair to say, that, if a team that sucks still sucks more than six years later, then it’s the fault of ownership and/or the front office?

      Raf wrote:

      By looking at the roster. There were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success.

      Correct. The question can not be answered without looking at the team’s payroll, or what the team spent in relation to other teams for the same time period, such as six years for example. Thank you.
      Therefore, it can not be said that it is the fault of a general manager that a team does not make a playoff appearance for a time period such as six years without looking at a team’s payroll; a general manager can not “suck” and a team can not make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has not spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period. And a general manager can “suck” and a team can make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period.

    67. McMillan
      December 23rd, 2012 | 5:42 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Correct. The question can not be answered without looking at the team’s payroll, or what the team spent in relation to other teams for the same time period, such as six years for example. Thank you.
      Therefore, it can not be said that it is the fault of a general manager that a team does not make a playoff appearance for a time period such as six years without looking at a team’s payroll; a general manager can not “suck” and a team can not make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has not spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period. And a general manager can “suck” and a team can make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period.

      Bravo.
      Raf wrote:

      The Pirates… have sucked because they’ve done a poor job of evaluating talent…

      “I’m an administrator. I’m a good listener. I would not pass myself off as an evaluator of talent.” – Brian Cashman.

    68. Ricketson
      December 23rd, 2012 | 6:22 pm

      @ McMillan:
      McMillan wrote:

      “I’m an administrator. I’m a good listener. I would not pass myself off as an evaluator of talent.” – Brian Cashman.

      Raf wrote:

      The Pirates suck, and have sucked because they’ve done a poor job of evaluating talent.

      Ricketson wrote:

      And a general manager can “suck” and a team can make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period.

    69. Evan3457
      December 23rd, 2012 | 6:40 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Ricketson wrote:
      Correct. The question can not be answered without looking at the team’s payroll, or what the team spent in relation to other teams for the same time period, such as six years for example. Thank you.
      Therefore, it can not be said that it is the fault of a general manager that a team does not make a playoff appearance for a time period such as six years without looking at a team’s payroll; a general manager can not “suck” and a team can not make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has not spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period. And a general manager can “suck” and a team can make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period.
      Bravo.
      Raf wrote:
      The Pirates… have sucked because they’ve done a poor job of evaluating talent…
      “I’m an administrator. I’m a good listener. I would not pass myself off as an evaluator of talent.” – Brian Cashman.

      Whether Cashman is an evaluator of talent has nothing to do with the fact that the Pirates have had a succession of front officie personnel who were very bad at it.

      Until recently, the Pirates’ top draft picks have been horrible. That’s just one example.

    70. McMillan
      December 23rd, 2012 | 6:50 pm

      @ Ricketson:
      It all fits together nicely, doesn’t it?

    71. Raf
      December 23rd, 2012 | 6:51 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      The question can not be answered without looking at the team’s payroll, or what the team spent in relation to other teams for the same time period, such as six years for example.

      Of course it can be answered, I answered the question already. You look at the roster, and try to address any deficiencies that may be on it.

      Therefore, it can not be said that it is the fault of a general manager that a team does not make a playoff appearance for a time period such as six years without looking at a team’s payroll;

      Yes, it can. As evidenced by all the other teams that have made the playoffs, or have finished with a better record than the O’s, or that the O’s are on their 3rd general manager in those 6 years, or 7th since their last playoff appearance (and winning season) in 1997.

    72. Ricketson
      December 23rd, 2012 | 7:03 pm

      @ McMillan:
      Ricketson wrote:

      @ McMillan:
      I’ve never seen anyone argue against himself more…

    73. McMillan
      December 23rd, 2012 | 7:09 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      I’ve never seen anyone argue against himself more…

      What about Brian Cashman?

    74. Ricketson
      December 23rd, 2012 | 7:43 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      What about Brian Cashman?

      That’s a different story…

    75. McMillan
      December 23rd, 2012 | 7:52 pm

      @ Raf:
      “Gotcha.”

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.