Indians Sign Manny Acta as New Mgr
Hoover
Steve-O
"Hoover" <Hoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Aq5Fm.2055$KA5....@newsfe12.iad...
> WTFF!!??
>
Well, if he has and sticks with a set lineup,
if he understands that a team of utility players won't win pennants,
if he understands that April games are as important as those in July,
if he can hire a true coaching staff instead of his inept buddies,
and if he's not Shapiro's shoe-shining lap dog,
then he may do just fine.
Give him a chance.
But, IMHO, Shapiro is the problem.
And the Dolans appear to like him.
Al
"Steve-O" <steve...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:f117a$4ae4f9e3$438c62d6$18...@ALLTEL.NET...
In a mid or small market towns, you have to start with ownership. It takes
a very rich owner to win consistently. Shapiro has done about as good as he
can with the present unfair financial structure of MLB. Like it or not, the
Big Market teams have a big advantage over the others, and, if you couple
that with a very wealthy owner (like the Yankees) it very hard not be be a
contender. We have a good example this year - look at the 4 finalists. All
are big market. Until baseball gets better revenue sharing, we can continue
to expect this kind of unfair competition. I don't waste my money anymore
on paying for tickets to ball games. And with the uneven competition
between teams for the better players, I have even cut down on my TV watching
of MLB. More and More the small and mid market teams are just becoming farm
clubs for the richer big market ones. As soon as a good player is near free
agency, he gets picked off by the richer team (usually big market). That
stinks!
Al
Steve-O
The Dolan's knew the big market/small market
deal when they bought the team. Day to day operations
are not what matter (or should not matter) to MLB franchise
investments.
They bought it hoping that they could run it as
a "Corner Drugstore" and milk a bit of profit from it.
The big profit, in their opinion, would/will come as its income
rises, simply by being one of only 30 MLB teams.
They could care less about ticket sales, standings, et c.
Lame excuses like "Small Market Teams can't compete", ignores the fact
that the owners are making money as the value of their MLB teams
goes up (unless they totally run them into the ground).
Improving the team, and filling seats should be seen as an investment.
Not doing so simply says that their investment will increase in value simply
by continuing to exist.
OBTW - the Cardinals & Twins seem to do just fine year in and year out.
The Dolan's can write off all these "losses" until they sell the team
for about 200% of their investment. Unless their product is ruined
by their boy Shapiro and his continued idiot decisions.
Al
Dolan's knew what they were buying. However, I will not watch the travesty
tonight of Sabathia vs. Lee. IMHO, that is definitely an example of how
screwed up MLB's financial structure is. And as long as us schmucks
continue to support MLB, by buying tickets or even watching it on TV, they
will not make the necessarily corrections in the area of revenue sharing
and/or realistically capping the player's enormous contracts. The present
financial structure produces the inability of all teams to compete with one
another fairly. Apparently, the richer big market teams and their fans like
it that way. Tonights game is really a farce and a good example of what I'm
saying. Both pitchers, Cy Young winners, couldn't demonstrate that any
better. You must have a blind eye (or no life) not to see it!
Al
Steve-O
"Al" <alb...@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:jP2dnUt3pfh4EXXX...@earthlink.com...
>
> You may think it's BS, and you may even have a point in saying that the
> Dolan's knew what they were buying. However, I will not watch the
> travesty tonight of Sabathia vs. Lee. IMHO, that is definitely an example
> of how screwed up MLB's financial structure is. And as long as us
> schmucks continue to support MLB, by buying tickets or even watching it on
> TV, they will not make the necessarily corrections in the area of revenue
> sharing and/or realistically capping the player's enormous contracts. The
> present financial structure produces the inability of all teams to compete
> with one another fairly. Apparently, the richer big market teams and
> their fans like it that way. Tonights game is really a farce and a good
> example of what I'm saying. Both pitchers, Cy Young winners, couldn't
> demonstrate that any better. You must have a blind eye (or no life) not
> to see it!
> Al
to other sports, smaller market teams are at somewhat of a disadvantage.
But:
You're leaving out the influence of the MLB Players Union.
They would never have allowed CC to sign a "Hometown"
deal with the Cleveland Indians. Think they'll agree to Salary Caps?
The Yankees, Red Sox, (Dodgers?) & ESPN are on board with the Union, imho.
You're ignoring that Shapiro has been a failure as GM.
His decisions have flat out stunk, and he deserves to be fired.
This one isn't even close. He's a pompous ass, who somehow
has the owners believing in his fairy tales.
I do not blame theTribe owners as much as others have.
They tried this past year to improve the club by signing
Kerry Wood and Mark DeRosa.
But, this constant whining about "Small Markets" being unable
to compete ignores the successes of the Twins, Tigers, Cardinals,
Rays, and Marlins. And deflects the truth wrt Shapiro's incompetence.
Tonawanda Kardex
> "Al" <albe...@joimail.com> wrote in message
You sucked on "Dancing with the Stars", dude.
Al
I guess your from a big market town. Have a wonderful series. You probably
need it.
Steve-O
>
> I guess your from a big market town. Have a wonderful series. You
> probably need it.
Uh, no. My town's popultation is about 35,000.
I'm a Tribe fan, and have been for decades.
I'm rooting for the Phillies. Remember, Charlie
wasn't good enough to manage for boy genius Shapiro.
I just have never liked Shapiro, and see him
as the root cause of the Tribe's problems.
He can't ever learn anything, because in his mind
he already knows everything. Wedge may have cost
the team 6 to 12 games this year with his idiotic lineups.
Shapiro is the reason they were in last place.
WRT the economics of MLB, that is pretty well
set in stone as long as the Union, ESPN, Fox and the
East Coast media see that it favors their collective
interests. Well run, well managed teams from small
and middle markets succeed. And, oh by the way,
I don't see Cleveland as a small market team.
Steve
barry
<steve...@windstream.net> wrote:
>I don't see Cleveland as a small market team.
>
>Steve
>
how do you figure? cleveland has a population of maybe a half mil, and
is hemmed in either by water to the north, or rivals within a 2 hour
drive in PGH & DET to the east and west in terms of TV coverage, and
southern ohio is more likely to be loyal to the reds.
minneapolis is smaller by maybe 100,000, but geographically, they have
the whole state of minnesota, plus states to the west as well as
western wisconsin & northern iowa in terms of telvision coverage. and
i'd take minnesota's economy over ohio's - though not the weather.
Steve-O
"barry" <toisa...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:l9rre5prdbvt6kaak...@4ax.com...
I dunno, Barry.
I'm no geographer, but I'd say the greater Cleveland metro area,
including Akron/Canton is well over 1,000,000 people.
Toledo no doubt has many Tribe fans, and is an easy drive from Cleveland.
Add the Columbus metro area to the equation, and you're over 2,000,000.
Add my town, and you're at 2,035,000.
Hope all's well with you and yours.
Steve
barry
<steve...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>"barry" <toisa...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:l9rre5prdbvt6kaak...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 13:58:53 -0500, "Steve-O"
>> <steve...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't see Cleveland as a small market team.
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>
>>
>> how do you figure? cleveland has a population of maybe a half mil, and
>> is hemmed in either by water to the north, or rivals within a 2 hour
>> drive in PGH & DET to the east and west in terms of TV coverage, and
>> southern ohio is more likely to be loyal to the reds.
>>
>> minneapolis is smaller by maybe 100,000, but geographically, they have
>> the whole state of minnesota, plus states to the west as well as
>> western wisconsin & northern iowa in terms of telvision coverage. and
>> i'd take minnesota's economy over ohio's - though not the weather.
>
>I dunno, Barry.
>I'm no geographer, but I'd say the greater Cleveland metro area,
>including Akron/Canton is well over 1,000,000 people.
>
>Toledo no doubt has many Tribe fans, and is an easy drive from Cleveland.
the problem is that toledo is closer to detroit, gets all the detroit
stations, and if you follow the path of least resistance, you're going
to root for the teams you can actually see on TV - and IIRC you don't
get many cleveland games on TV in toledo. we're talking about that
right now in the browns NG.
>Add the Columbus metro area to the equation, and you're over 2,000,000.
i'd expect colmbus to be split between indians and the reds.
even if we grant your estimate of 2 mil, NY is still probably 5 times
that - and once you include grenwich CT to the north, the question of
actual amount of disposable income per household also becomes
relevant. IIRC, letterman lives in greenwich - and he's probably only
in the upper third in terms of affluence - but those folks wouldn't
even blink at paying an outrageous price to watch the yankees on
cable. etc. or to buy box seats at yankee stadium, etc.
>Add my town, and you're at 2,035,000.
LOL
>Hope all's well with you and yours.
>Steve
>
can't complain, and likewise.
bc
Irwin Fletcher
You know, the Tribe's payroll at the beginning of the 2009 season was $83
million. That is not a small market payroll. I don't blame the Dolans for
"not spending"; I blame Shapiro for spending like a moron.
The problem was how Shapiro chose to utilize those budgeted dollars and
which players he gave huge money to. If you gave the Twins a $83 million
payroll, I bet they're in the World Series now, not the Yankee$.
Shapiro can't evaluate or develop talent and can't manage this payroll.
Sure, Wedge didn't help matters with his managing style, but it's a weasel
move to solely blame Wedge.
barry
managing *does* matter; there's a reason that the dodgers had
something like 5 rookies of the year in a row back in the 80's while
tommy lasorda was managing them. orel hershiser is a great example -
lasorda nicknamed him 'bulldog' when the reality was that hershiser
was still unsure of himself as a rookie, but he bought into what
lasorda was selling. but lasorda was also astute enough to recognize
what was going on emotionally and deal with it on a one-by-one basis.
even a coach like bobby knight was astute enough to have assistant
coaches whose jobs were to do damage control when knight went too far.
the failure of barfield mystifies me. but we wouldn't even have needed
to trade for him if we'd kept philips and put him in the right frame
of mind (granted, philips was stubborn). so in my mind it's somewhat
difficult to quantify shapiro's ability to qauge talent.
one of shapiro's greatest acquisitions that will never be recognized
was signing trot nixon. nixon didn't have a productive year on the
field, but he loosened up the clubhouse by starting the cream pie in
the face tradition. his absence from the 2008 roster is the major
difference IMO.
having said all that, shapiro had a few whiffs - such as the
acquisitions of delucci and michaels - 1st, in the belief that
michaels could be an everyday player, but i believe that the combo of
michaels and dellucci could have worked had dellucci stayed healthy.
no one wants to remember exactly *how* we got two of our best players
in cabrera and shoo - in trade for both halves of the *platoon* we had
at 1B in broussard and perez. i went on record expecting that platoon
to produce at least 20 HRs & 80 RBIs at about a .260 BA over 600 ABs -
(and if you follow my posts, i rarely make predictions) - and they
combined for .320 30+ HR & 100+ RBIs by the trading deadline.
and the best parts of that platoon was that broussard had only a 1
year deal at about 2 mil. while perez had a 2 year deal at around $2.5
mil a year. a single player producing those kinds of numbers would
command a multiyear contract at 8 figures. we paid $4.5 mil for that
kind of production - and that one year gave garko another year at
triple A. if you look at the contracts of dellucci and michaels, they
were geared towards giving francisco & guiterriez time to mature in
the minors. hafner getting hurt made us more vulnerable to RHP - and
the lack of lefties on the bench prompted wedge to play dellucci for
matchups when dellucci would have been better suited to playing
everyday in the minors to work the rust off his swing.
marte's lack of success also baffles me - if it turns out that he's
really 3 years older, then it makes sense - his success at every level
despite being one of the youngest players in each league is the main
reason everyone was so high on him. but the braves could afford to
trade him to boston since they had chipper jones at 3B. and it's not
like crisp went on to have a stellar career in boston. we could get
away with having a singles hitter in LF (a position where you
typically plug in a power hitter who's otherwise defensively limited,
ditto for 1B) because we had power at SS & C (positions where defense
is usually the highest priority and offense is a bonus). we won't have
that now.
peralta at 3B still baffles me - if he's such a great fit there, why
not groom him to play 3B back when we were playing bill f--king SELBY
at 3B then casey blake and we still had omar at SS?
but at least someone out there recognizes that the dolans aren't as
cheap as the typically ignorant fan wants to bleat. and having hafner
and westbrook hurt (our two highest paid players) out didn't help
matters.
overall, my take is that people skills do matter - more so for a young
club. acta seems to be well regarded in this area. and the unsolicited
phone from bobby cox to the indians commending their choice suggests
that acta knows baseball. let's give the guy a chance.
Steve-O
I agree.
Acta deserves a chance and my support.
I believe that Marte and Barfield got in Wedge's
doghouse, and that was it for them. He seemed to be pretty
thin skinned (intimidated?) by some players, and I
think it influenced his managerial decisions. That combined
with often idiotic lineups (Garko in LF, E.G.) sealed his fate.
For Shapiro, his human shield is now gone. He has lost many
quality MLB starters who are doing just fine for other teams.
He better hope that the "Prospects" he's received in lieu of
proven MLB talent pan out, or hopefully, the Dolans will send him
packing. Don't get me wrong, I've worked with computers since the
early 70s. I just don't see them as much of the useful Baseball tool
that Mark Shaipro does.
barry
our players might have done better if wedge didn't have them playing
so tight. i still maintain that trot nixon's influence in the
clubhouse (and startng that pie in the face routine) was a major
reason for the indians success that year.
Al
commentators, Cleveland is a mid-market town. They generally divide it by
small market, mid market, and large market. If you simply consider which
teams made the playoffs and finals, it seems the large market teams were
disproportionately represented. In L.A. both teams were there. Also,
consider the fact that two Cleveland (or former Cleveland) players started
the first game of the World Series. I could go on and on, but it seems
quite clear what's happening. It's no big surprise that the Yankees won.
In fact, with what they've been dishing out for free agents, it's about
time. However, no one can compete with them in getting the free agents they
want. Face it, the playing field is far from level under the present
financial structure of MLB. In fact, I no longer consider it fair
competition. Instead, it's more like a show or exhibition. It's it's
presently greatly skewed in favor of the richest large market teams and
particularly the Yankees.
Regarding Cleveland, I wouldn't criticize Shapiro too much. His hands are
tied by the owners (the Dolans). They cannot spend anything like the
Yankees. The best they can do is develope good players, use them for a few
years, and then see them leave as free agents like so many have, e.g.,
Thome, Manny, Lee, Sabathia, etc. It's almost like Cleveland has become a
super farm club for the big money clubs. And Cleveland isn't the only one.
More and more people are becoming aware that the playing field is far from
level.
I'm a senior citizen who has followed MLB for a long time. Take my word for
it, baseball was a more competitive and better game backing in the 30s to
the 60s than our present farce.
Al
PS - Is anyone surprised that the Yankees won? Perhaps this made many New
Yorkers happy, but there's a great big country out there. What about them?
And, even more important, without them, where does it leave New York?
It's time baseball got it's financial structure unscrewed like other pro
sports have.
Steve-O
> Regarding Cleveland, I wouldn't criticize Shapiro too much.
That'd make a cat laugh.
He's gotten some real gems in these late season White Flag
moves. The Dolan's let him get two first rate players last off-season.
Then he gave up and packed it in when the team HE put together was
out of it before summer. Shapiro IS the problem. He knows everything,
ergo, he cannot learn anything.
> PS - Is anyone surprised that the Yankees won? Perhaps this made many New
> Yorkers happy, but there's a great big country out there. What about
> them?
> And, even more important, without them, where does it leave New York?
> It's time baseball got it's financial structure unscrewed like other pro
> sports have.
>
I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
In no way am I a Yankee fan.
And w/out Mariano Rivera, I'm not sure they do win it.
You said that you were a senior citizen....
Didn't the Yankees use to win almost all the time
from the 20s through the early 60s? Prior to the end
of the Reserve Clause, Marvin Miller, and the Curt
Flood case ?
And the MLPBA is the strongest sports union in existence.
That Union, East Coast team owners as well as ESPN and Fox Sports
are perfectly content with the status quo. I see no way of fixing
the situation.
But the Tribe still needs a Baseball (not computer geek) GM.
whatitis
> "Steve-O" <steveone...@windstream.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f117a$4ae4f9e3$438c62d6$18...@ALLTEL.NET...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Hoover" <Hoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:Aq5Fm.2055$KA5....@newsfe12.iad...
> >> WTFF!!??
>
> > Well, if he has and sticks with a set lineup,
> > if he understands that a team of utility players won't win pennants,
> > if he understands that April games are as important as those in July,
> > if he can hire a true coaching staff instead of his inept buddies,
> > and if he's not Shapiro's shoe-shining lap dog,
> > then he may do just fine.
>
> > Give him a chance.
>
> > But, IMHO, Shapiro is the problem.
> > And the Dolans appear to like him.
>
> In a mid or small market towns, you have to start with ownership. It takes
> a very rich owner to win consistently. >
Now you are making me laugh...You do know the Steinbrenners are
propably
among the least rich in baseball...can you say bankruptcy...learn your
facts before posting ..you look stupid.
Al
"whatitis" <foxfire...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14261205-a005-4867...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
It's no surprise the Yankees won. What's surprising is, with the enormous
cash outlay to free agents that other teams don't or can't match, what took
the Yankees so long?
Al
Al
Yes, the Yankees sure did win a lot back then. They had a first class
organization that knew what it was doing, a line of great players
(particularly pitching) and even back then they could frequently outbid
other teams for signing new talent. But then the playing field was fairly
level (besides the natural attraction of NY for some players) until they
started to used the Kansas City team as a farm club. However, back then,
the Yankees did out compete the other teams. Now, the financial structure
in the current market (free agents, lack of adequate revenue sharing, etc.)
makes real competion impossible. Throw in ownership like the present
Yankees and that's doubly true.
Al