2008 World Series Running Thread: Phillies-Rays (No. 3: The Babe Ruth edition)

Let's see what the Rays' payroll is in 2010.

And let's see where BJ Upton is in 2012 or 2014.

I'll bet anything you want he's in Tampa.

It's hilarious watching people flail and fail here as they try to pretend the Rays' success doesn't prove anyone can do this. It really, really is.

 

Interesting stuff, thanks. It's funny reading Naimoli try to convince himself as well as the interviewer that he's thrilled about this. He really is.

Fact: Team was the biggest joke in sports under him. Now he can do no damage and the Rays are in the World Series.

 

Re: 2008 World Series Running Thread: Phillies-Rays (No. 3: The Babe Ruth editio

The World Series pitching matchups are as follows:

Game One: Phillies (Hamels) @ Rays (Kazmir)
Game Two: Phillies (Myers) @ Rays (Shields)
Game Three: Rays (Garza) @ Phillies (Moyer)
Game Four: Rays (Sonnanstine) @ Phillies (Blanton)

 

I just knew you couldn't resist. Took you a few hours to come up with that one, didn't it?

The Rays' success does prove something -- that it is possible for a small-market team to win in the short term. Of course, that had already been proven. Some people here just keep trying to make it into something new, which means they are either completely clueless or just don't care about the facts as long as they get to make their flawed little arguments.

 

I can't resist? Rich, given all you do is reply to everything that might possibly be about you. Oh let me guess you're laughing at yourself, right?

It's OK though. I've been proven right in the short-term, and I'll be proven right in the long-term. I've provided the stats, the baseball-wide trends as well as the Rays' long-term situation numerous times this year, yet they fly right over your little head.

And if you think this was all about one game...then you're even more clueless than I thought. The Rays winning Game Seven just took away any defense you might have had, which was what made it so delicious.

Flawed little arguments. You know a lot about at least two of those words.

 

Re: 2008 World Series Running Thread: Phillies-Rays (No. 3: The Babe Ruth editio

Wait until the Twins win it all next year.

This board will have to be shut down.

 

What's your definition of "short term"? Two years? Three years? Five? How many teams have more than a 3-5 year championship window anyway? Just because the Twins and A's can't seal the deal doesn't mean the system is blatantly unfair.
A few years back, I lost all respect for Billy Beane after the A's lost a playoff series to the Red Sox. I forget what year it was, maybe '03. Whenever they were up 2-0 or 2-1 in the ALDS and the Sox came back to win the series. Much like the Jeter play in 2001, they lost Game 3 when somebody didn't slide on a close play at the plate.
Beane was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle afterward as saying "If we had another $50 million to work with, we'd have won this series."
No, assmunch, if your players knew when to fucking slide you'd have won the damn series. If it takes $50 million to teach them that, your organization is a joke. If you finish 81-81 and 10 games out, you can make that argument. If you win 90 games and squeak into the playoffs as a wild card, then get blitzed in the LDS, you can make that argument.
When you win 95 games, and your division, and push a team to the brink of elimination, you can't. If you're good enough to get in that position, you're good enough to seal the deal. An extra $50 million in payroll isn't doing squat for you at that point.

 

Jeez, you replied again! (and still haven't grasped why I wrote that above)

You have shown me quite a bit about flawed and I know all about arguments.

Again, same old stuff. You think that by declaring victory, somebody out there might be dumb enough to buy it. Regarding the "one game" comment, as soon as it looked like the Red Sox might win, you started backtracking and you know it. But the Rays pulled through, so suddenly the ALCS becomes the deciding evidence for all time....in your mind.

I have seen your evidence and I understand it just fine. I just disagree with the conclusions you are drawing from it. You are trying to argue that the big markets don't have an advantage any more. Sorry, no reasonable person is going to see it that way. The importance or size of the advantage is a subject worthy of debate, but there is no question that it still exists.

Yes, some players are getting locked up early. Small-market teams have done that before. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

Oh, maybe you can show us that list of guys who signed with small-market teams, the one you padded by using deals such as Matt Capps getting $3 million for two years from the Pirates and hoped nobody would notice.

Keep on creaming yourself about the Rays. It still doesn't change the substance of the argument one bit, no matter how much you want to insist that it does. I'll try this one more time and maybe it will even sink in for you. This is not new. The Marlins did it once, too. So did the Indians. I know they didn't win, but the Rays haven't won yet, either.

 

Wow, this argument? Again?

 

Actually, you can make Beane's argument just fine. With another $50 million, it doesn't come down to something because the team is even better.

Batman, did you really type, "another $50 million in payroll isn't doing squat for you" with a straight face?

I keep coming back to this simple bit of logic. Take two organizations. Both are run equally as well. One has a $200 million payroll. The other has a $50 million payroll. Which one is going to be better? Is that merit deciding things or just geographic advantage?

 

I was waiting for somebody to tell us to shut up. Where is 2muchcoffeeman, anyway?

 

Messrs. OOP and BYH ... could you cocksuckers take your piddly-ass little argument to PMs, please? We're sick and fucking tired of it.