--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 234 BASEBALL Ref: DC500005 Date: 08/03/96 From: TORIANA SADDLER Time: 05:27pm \/To: DAVID HUNTER (Read 2 times) Subj: Senseless Talk. i've been trying but you are on the computer so if you read this get off the damn computer love you ... That's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature. --- FMail/386 1.02 * Origin: Quick's Room {5 Nodes of Fun!} 901-360-0317 (1:123/72) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 234 BASEBALL Ref: DC500006 Date: 08/04/96 From: CHRIS BOX Time: 11:10am \/To: PETER MCDONALD (Read 2 times) Subj: dodger fans *** Quoting Peter Mcdonald to Chris Box dated 08-01-96 *** > THAT'S FOR SURE DO YOU THEY WIN THE GAME > > > > PETER MCDONALD what???? --- T.A.G. 2.7 Standard * Origin: Grasshopper Nest__TAG Beta Site__USR v.e (1:106/1119) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 234 BASEBALL Ref: DC500007 Date: 08/04/96 From: CHRIS BOX Time: 11:14am \/To: STEVE EVANS (Read 2 times) Subj: dodger fans *** Quoting Steve Evans to Chris Box dated 08-02-96 *** > Problem is, Dodgers have that tradition of not liking to change managers > very much (Alston 24 yrs., Lasorda 20). If Russell has any kind of > luck, even being a .500 manager, he might have a lock on the job for > awhile. I think even Dusty Baker might be a better manager for the > Dodgers than Bill Russell is right now. i can agree to that but i think russelll will do ok, as long as the possibility of lasorda not coming back he may take us all the way, our talent is great but we just needed the conterversy to end, --- T.A.G. 2.7 Standard * Origin: Grasshopper Nest__TAG Beta Site__USR v.e (1:106/1119) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 234 BASEBALL Ref: DC500008 Date: 08/04/96 From: STEVE EVANS Time: 12:50pm \/To: CHRIS BOX (Read 2 times) Subj: dodger fans Russell would be the better choice because he's more agressive than Lasorda. We've already seen how he likes to steal bases which is something Tommy didn't do very much. Russell will do fine once he learns how to handle the pitchers. I always felt Lasorda pulled pitchers out too early because he believed that few pitchers are capable of throwing a complete game. I don't think Russell will pull pitchers as early. --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Library COM -* Reno, NV USA *- (702) 785-4191 (1:213/742) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 234 BASEBALL Ref: DC500009 Date: 08/04/96 From: DAVID LENTZ Time: 07:39am \/To: DON HUNT (Read 2 times) Subj: Ozzie Smith, an All-star! Don, In a letter, you wrote: DH>ozzie smith is the man he has game just like me. If Ozzie Smith fielded like you wrote, he would never have gotten past A ball. Happy Modeming -- David --- * KMail 3.10m Knight Moves --- QScan/PCB v1.17b / 01-0406 * Origin: Knight Moves - Rochester,NY 716-865-2106 (1:2613/313) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 234 BASEBALL Ref: DC500010 Date: 07/29/96 From: KEN HERNDON Time: 10:57am \/To: CHRIS BOX (Read 2 times) Subj: question -=> Quoting Chris Box to All <=- CB> does anyone remember the name of a guy who came up with atlanta i CB> think (baseball by the way) and was traded or played with the red sox CB> maybe, he was a first baseman i think, and he was really good and had a CB> lot of potential but he got that virtigo virus or whatever its called CB> where you lose your equilibrium and can't see straight... CB> CB> well if anyone has the slightest clue what i'm talking about i'd be CB> very grateful Chris, you are referring to Nick Esasky! FYI, he came back to the Braves, who gave him more than ample chance to make it, but never could get to the point of expectations. Ken ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 --- TriToss (tm) Professional 10.0 - #123 * Origin: (1:133/5009.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 234 BASEBALL Ref: DC500011 Date: 08/05/96 From: SCOTT ZOLNOSKI Time: 01:16am \/To: ED GRINNELL (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: Hmmm -=> Quoting Ed Grinnell to Scott Zolnoski <=- EG> @MSGID: 1:170/1701 32033c80 EG> So, what financial windfall did the Padres use to grab Vaughn? Cecil EG> Fielder was obtain via a swap of players. The deal did cost New York EG> $3 mil as Fielder makes $9.2 mil and Sierra makes $6.2 mil but still, EG> it was a player trade. True, New York can afford him, however, so can EG> Detroit (Let's face facts, Detroit spent over $31 mil last year so EG> it's not like they couldn't afford Cecil). The Padres are finally subscribing the the idea that it takes money to win, even if the team doesn't have that money to spend. I'm not saying that Detroit couldn't afford Cecil (and, on a completely different subject, WHY did Detroit trade an aging slugger for another aging slugger? I would've thought that Detroit would go after some pitching!), but the Yankees have far more financial resources than most teams. EG> worse despite adding to their payroll. LA (+$2.3) and Colorado (+$4.4) EG> have both dropped while SD (+$2.5) has gone up. Heck, the Mets have EG> spent $5.4 mil more and all they have to show for it is a record EG> that's nearly the same as last year. Spending money doesn't equate to EG> winning. EG> Chicago and Cleveland used to be the dregs of the league and they EG> didn't have squat for revenue BUT both have become contenders because EG> of their farm systems and NOT free agency. Yes, but Cleveland isn't exactly a model for in-house development. Take a look at the pitching staff: Orel Hershiser, Jack McDowell, Jose Mesa, Denny Martinez, Kent Mercker, Paul Assenmacher, Eric Plunk, and Greg Swindell are all products of other teams. Their lineup isn't exactly homegrown: Mark Carreon, Omar Vizquel, Kenny Lofton, Jermony Burnitz, Tony Pena, and Sandy Alomar Jr. are also all from other teams. I'm not a walking baseball encyclopedia, so I don't know how all of these players were acquired, but they're all from other teams. I agree that Cleveland developed their key players through their minor league system (Belle, Thome, Ramirez), but they've augmented that through signings. Cleveland is actually a good example of why I cited payroll figures, because even though it's a smaller market, their massive attendance gives them financial security. I don't see it as necessarily a market-size issue (although that's usually the underlying problem) so much as a difference in revenue issue. The White Sox are actually a much better example of building from within. The vast majority of their team consists of home-grown players, but even they rely on signees. Their entire outfield of Tony Phillips, Darren Lewis, Danny Tartabull, and Dave Martinez were acquired through either trades or the free-agent market, as were Wilson Alvarez, and Kevin Tapani. In fact, it's always astounded me that the Sox don't accomplish more, but perhaps they'll take the wildcard this year. It's clear that the goal is to develop players in one's own system and build a winning team, then use the increased revenue to re-sign those players to long-term contracts (it seems to work for Cleveland!), but it's a tricky thing to time right. If a team doesn't produce wins or increased revenue quickly enough, those young players are going to sign with another team for a lot more money after three years. It's the reason a certain centerfielder now plays with the Cubs rather than the Royals... EG> PLAYERS and look at them. If Pittsburgh had made that same commitment, EG> they wouldn't be in the boat that they're in now (To be fair, EG> Pittsburgh is in a unique situation. They've had contending teams that EG> didn't draw squat and that hurt them but you have to admit that they EG> wouldn't have dropped as much if they still had guys like Bonds and EG> Bonilla). See, this is pretty much the point I've been making! If Pittsburgh had a comparable source of revenue, they'd still have a chance to be competitive. Since they can't seem to draw fans, and I'm sure their TV income doesn't compare to say the Yankees (I don't have the figures, but it seems reasonable to assume. If you know this to be false, then point it out and I'll shut up about this point! :) ). Because of the inequity in revenue, a competitve team was broken apart. Frankly, the Royals did the right thing. They had some high EG> priced people that weren't doing the job and something had to be done. EG> The money that they saved can be used better and if they get a EG> contending team and they're smart, they'll keep them together. Well, the Royals threw away massive amounts of money during the last few years of the life of their former owner, Ewing Kauffman, in a vain effort to win another title before his death. They signed MANY free agents of dubious value (Dave Henderson, Mark Davis, Storm Davis, to name just a few that spring to mind). I'm not saying that winning is a simple matter of spending money on a team. The point I'm trying to make is that the more money a team has to spend, it seems the more sucessful that team is likely to be. Compare the off-season moves of the Yankees and the Orioles to a team like the Brewers. I'm sure the Milwaukee managament would've loved to sign some of the free agents available, but they couldn't begin to outbid the big boys. EG> You don't understand, your TEAM PAYROLL figures were wrong. St. Louis' EG> payroll isn't as low as you claim. They were 9th this year after being EG> 19th last year. I freely admitted that I was using payrolls as of opening day (actually, as of the off-season!), because those are the only numbers I've got. EG> Bull, these teams DO have money. Montreal spent LESS THAN HALF of its EG> revenue last year on salaries and just over half this year (They made EG> $1 mil more than SD and spent $12 mil less). Financial World says that EG> Montreal MADE a $7.1 mil profit while SD LOST $5.1 mil. They've put EG> profits ABOVE winning and I have no sympathy if they would rather make EG> a buck and complain rather than spend the money to keep their players. EG> Jeez, $12 mil will keep their more important players around. Maybe the So you're saying a team HAS to operate in the red to win? It seems to me that this just invites team instabilty. How many owners are going to want to continue to own a team if they know they have to lose money in order to have a chance? How many potential new owners are going to look into other sports rather than baseball because of the need to lose money to win? I know *I* sure wouldn't argue that deficit spending and the selling of teams is a way to insure stability. You don't seem to have explained how to break out of the cycle of nowin-small attendance-low revenue-less wins etc. EG> They've spent more money on re-signing them but they got 3-5 good EG> years out of their players. If a team like Montreal or KC can make a EG> commitment to their players and KEEP that commitment, they wouldn't EG> lose them like they do. They HAVE money, it's just a matter of them EG> spending it. St. Louis, which has a lot of money backing them, put EG> profits above winning and they lost games and fans. Now that they've EG> made the commitment to spend that money, winning and fans have EG> returned. Again, your argument seems to be that a team must spend more money than it takes in if it wishes to win. This seems a pretty risky strategy to me. What if a team spends more and it still doesn't win? (for example, the Royals lost millions during it's free-agent spree, and still didn't win more. Obviously this goes against what I've been saying, but I wasn't making a direct cause-effect statement, more a statement of generalities). Such a team will become even worse off, because not only will financial responsibilites increase, but attendance and interest will decrease. I'm of the opinion that this is exactly what has happened to the Royals over the past few years, and they're just starting to overcome it. It may still take several more years before they're truly competitive again. EG> They HAVE the money. For God's sakes, there are teams out there that EG> would rather make a profit than spend it on anyone, even their farm EG> hands. Again, deficit spending as a way to winning? EG> If money is the root of all, Montreal should be sporting a .444 EG> winning percentage and Philly should be winning at a .491 clip but EG> Montreal is .095 above their payroll percentage while Philly is .091 EG> below. New York (.044), Atlanta (.062) and Cleveland (.062) are above EG> their expected percentages while other big spenders like Boston EG> (.078), Baltimore (.061) and Cincinnati (.034) are below. Monteal EG> isn't overachieving, they're underpaid. Well, it will be interesting to see how the MOntreal team does in the next year or so. Montreal players may be underpaid now, but at the beginning of the season, how many could have predicted that Henry Rodriguez would have 27 HRs, Grudzielanek would hit .316 (these figures are a bit out of date, because the latest BBWeekly I've got is the July 24-30 issue, but obviously Rodriguez doesn't have FEWER HRs now! :) ), Andrews would hit 12 HR, and White would hit .303? How many of these players are up for free-agency in a year or two, and how many of them will opt to stay in Montreal if they can get more money elsewhere? Should the Expos be forced to spend more than they take in to keep these players? ... Lately I find I can't find my piece of mind.. - East Ash --- Blue Wave v2.12 [NR] * Origin: Noah's Kitchen, Portland, Or. 503-977-3934 (1:105/37) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 234 BASEBALL Ref: DC500012 Date: 08/05/96 From: SCOTT ZOLNOSKI Time: 01:16am \/To: ED GRINNELL (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: Ozzie Smith, an All-star!?!?!? -=> Quoting Ed Grinnell to Scott Zolnoski <=- SZ> by their hometown and baseball in general. Why did Kirby get the shaft SZ> (that is, if he DID get the shaft! I can't remember the timing of his SZ> announcement...) EG> It amazes me how far you will go to put down Oz. For your information, EG> Puckett had hopes of playing but those hopes were dashed on July 12, EG> which was AFTER the All-Star game. Yowsa! Ask a simple question! I was simply wondering if Puckett announced before or after the All-Star game. I have nothing against Ozzie Smith, I just didn't agree with his inclusion in the All-Star game. ... Tell me I'm wrong, I don't really care -The Cure --- Blue Wave v2.12 [NR] * Origin: Noah's Kitchen, Portland, Or. 503-977-3934 (1:105/37) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 234 BASEBALL Ref: DCA00000 Date: 08/03/96 From: HANNES ZIERY Time: 09:15pm \/To: TERRY MAY (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: Red Sox Hello Terry! Wednesday July 31 1996 09:41, Terry May wrote to Hannes Ziery: TM> Re: _Red Sox_, Hannes Ziery wrote to Steve Smith on 29 Jul 96: HZ>> You can say it`s too hot HZ>> You can say it`s too cold HZ>> You can say it`s the wind HZ>> You can say it`s the wrong day HZ>> You can say it`s only luck HZ>> BUT YOU CANNOT BEAT THE RED SOX TM> Geez, they're undefeated? Wow! :^) Yes and the Braves left Boston cause they could`t match the Red Sox Servus Hannes --- GoldED 2.50+ * Origin: STRUCK EM OUT ON THREE PITCHES (2:316/777.1918) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 234 BASEBALL Ref: DCA00001 Date: 08/05/96 From: ED GRINNELL Time: 06:17pm \/To: SCOTT ZOLNOSKI (Read 2 times) Subj: Hmmm Scott Zolnoski was seen kissing Large Marge and telling us: SZ> The Padres are finally subscribing the the idea that it takes money SZ> to win, even if the team doesn't have that money to spend. But, they DO have the money to win. Financial World gets what they can be even they admit that some of their figures are low. Teams also can write off their players as depreciated equipment and even teams with "losses" end up making a profit from their IRS returns after they've exhausted all of their loopholes. SZ> aging slugger? I would've thought that Detroit would go after some SZ> pitching!), but the Yankees have far more financial resources than SZ> most teams. You have to look at the market at what they could get. They would have liked to have gotten some prospects but no team was willing to give them value in that area for Fielder so they had to take the Yankees offer. In lieu of pitching, Detroit chose to take financial relief from the Yankees. SZ> Yes, but Cleveland isn't exactly a model for in-house development. Again, you are looking at something and NOT seeing the picture. They developed a lot of players and some of them went to other teams in deals while others have stayed with the team. If you look at that list, you'll see a lot of guys on the pitching staff that were either reaches or desperation moves to get SOME KIND of pitching (Orel is an example as there was questions about his health and that's the reason why LA didn't want to spend a lot of money on re-signing him). Some of the position players that you mentioned were obtained by trades of prospects. Cleveland could have never gotten those players without a good farm system. SZ> massive attendance gives them financial security. I don't see it as SZ> necessarily a market-size issue (although that's usually the underlying SZ> problem) so much as a difference in revenue issue. Which is something that a team controls. Cleveland made a commitment to winning and it has paid off as the fans have returned. Before, they were nothing more than a farm team for the Yankees and now, they've been able to keep their better players. SZ> it's a tricky thing to time right. If a team doesn't produce wins SZ> or increased revenue quickly enough, those young players are going to SZ> sign with another team for a lot more money after three years. Malarky. The team has to make a COMMITMENT and if that means a couple of years of paper losses then so be it. SZ> See, this is pretty much the point I've been making! If Pittsburgh SZ> had a comparable source of revenue, they'd still have a chance to be Pittsburgh didn't have the revenue of the Yankees, however, their owners had no real commitment to keeping them in the first place. They alienated Bonds and Bonilla by taking them every year to arbitration rather than pay them fair market value and getting long term commitments (In the meantime, they restructure Andy Van Slyke's contract, despite the fact that he had a few years to go on it and he didn't ask them to do so). They got fed up with the treatment and it was "Adios, Pittsburgh." Had they given both players fair market value, both players would have signed longer contracts. Pittsburgh didn't lose them to them to the free agent market, they lost them because they would rather save $2-3 mil a year. Cleveland learned from that and they made a pre-emptive strike that got them to the World Series last year. SZ> So you're saying a team HAS to operate in the red to win? It seems SZ> to me that this just invites team instabilty. Really? SD added $3 mil to its payroll while Montreal has sliced $3 mil from its. Given the same ticket prices this year as last, SD stands to make $7.7 mil MORE this year than they did in the same number of games while Montreal will make $1.1 more. Taking that to a full season, SD will make about $10.1 mil MORE than last season while Montreal will make $2.8 mil more. For spending $3 mil, SD is set to make a profit this year AND enhancing media revenues next year when they can go to the stations as a winner and possibly pulling in more fans. Meanwhile, Montreal disappoints their fans, loses more to apathy and loses players to free agency because they won't deal in the real world. I have no sympathy for the Montreals of the world that would rather clear a profit at a low price than clearing one at a higher price. --- TrekEd 1.00 * Origin: Striking a blow to purists (1:170/1701)