Page 4 of 35 FirstFirst ... 23456818 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 344

Thread: Official 2011-2012 MLB Hot Stove Thread

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Yoshi View Post
    Winning generates revenue more than anything else, and I know you know that big names are not the smartest way to win. If you can't win, big names are the next best thing I guess. The New York Rangers were the poster children for this for years before bottoming out and collecting draft picks.
    It doesn't always work that way. There are plenty of teams who are decent for several years (the Rays, Twins, etc.) who don't generate revenue through winning. It may be a sad fact, but bringing in players with celebrity status can help bringing in revenue. I don't think a team should go for every big name out there, but it does help to balance (from a business standpoint) the big names with the best overall group of players you can put together. The big name's also don't get big by being terrible players. The only sin there is signing the big names when they're way past their prime.

    Those Blue Jays uniforms are pretty awesome. I really like the blue one. I'm almost tempted to get a Bautista jersey in that color.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diff-chan View Post
    I don't think the format has been decided yet.

    This looks like the "get Yankees and Red Sox in the playoffs every year" rule IMO.
    The one game seems the most likely. I did read an article on MLB.com about how it should be a best of 3 series (with the team with the higher wins hosting all three games). The writer suggested adding 3 double headers to each team's schedule to keep the playoffs in October. It made sense by allowing the division winners several days of rest.

    I was against the idea at first, but like I said; it puts the wild-card winners at a disadvantage. I like that.
    Last edited by Gohron; 18 Nov 2011 at 11:43 PM.
    http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=1739&dateline=1225393453

  2. Just chiming in on a few things in this thread:

    - I've been a Dodgers fan my entire life, and that contract for Matt Kemp is fucking ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I like Matt Kemp, and I'm glad he will be on the team another 8 years (or at least I hope he is still good at least 5 of those 8 years), but signing him to the richest contract in Dodger history, after ONE monster season is kind of ridiculous; especially considering how much of a flop he was in 2010. I would have much preferred the Dodgers giving Mike Piazza 100 million in 1998...or giving Beltre the money he deserved after 2004.

    I also don't like this contract because it probably means that my current favorite player, Andre Ethier, probably wont be wearing Dodger Blue much longer.

    - I really like the throwback Orioles and Blu-Jays jerseys/hats. I'm thinking about running out and buying both of them. I used to have that old Blue-Jays hat as a kid, in 1993, and I miss it. On the other hand, we've all already agreed that the Marlins uniforms are hideously disgusting, right?!

    - I really, really, dig the addition of a second Wild Card team. I wouldn't go any further than this, with adding playoff teams because then it would turn into the NBA, with a meaningless regular season. However, 10 teams out of 30 making the playoffs is fine with me.

    I like the idea of a one game playoff for the Wild Card teams because it puts more pressure on teams to try to win the division out right. It makes the odds of a Wild Card team coming in, getting hot at the last second, and beating up on the teams that have been good all year a lot tougher. We've been seeing Wild Card teams win the World Series too often, since the inception of the Wild Card, and I think this is enough proof that we needed to do more to handicap the Wild Card teams.

    On the other hand, the one game "play ins" we have had, like that one between the Twins and Tigers a few years back are some of the most exciting games ever. Do you think the excitement of the one game Wild Card playoff might overshadow the excitement of a seven game World Series?!? That wouldn't be right....but a one game, winner take all, is just more exciting PERIOD.

    - Lastly, I was sickened by the fact that the Dodgers wasted $8 million to sign MARK ELLIS (LOL), until I saw that the Pirates want to sign Clint Barmes for $11 million. Now I don't feel so bad.

  3. Braun wins NL MVP. Not sure what to think. He had a great season, but Kemp had better numbers on a much worse team = more value, in terms of production. It had to have been decided due to the Brewers winning the Central.

    I'd argue Miguel Cabrera had more impact on the Tigers' season than Verlander too. I don't think a pitcher should ever win MVP.

    I still think the NL Cy should have been Ian Kennedy. Without him, Arizona doesn't win the division. Going by the same logic as MVP, the Dodgers missed the playoffs despite Kershaw's season, and the Phillies would have won their division without Halladay or Lee.

    Satoshi Kon: 1963-2010

  4. #34
    All of the major sports leagues should have more explicit definitions on how to vote for awards. A guy who misses the playoffs should never be MVP. A pitcher should rarely, if ever, be MVP. On the other hand, the Cy Young is the best pitcher, not the most valuable, so that one should not be impacted at all by the strength of the team.

  5. Explicit definitions are meaningless. Look at the Heisman, it's pretty much just become "the QB or RB of the best team", which is totally not what it should be (Suh got hosed a couple years ago). But then again that is what happens when you have a bunch of QBs and RBs of the best teams voting.

    By the definition of the phrase, certainly a team that didn't make the playoffs could have the most valuable player, if they would've been even more hopless without him. But as Yoshi's sentence proves, these things mean different things to different people.

    Matt Kemp had the highest VORP. He was the most valuable player. The team he played for doesn't matter.

    Good players are more valuable on bad teams than good ones.
    Last edited by Diff-chan; 23 Nov 2011 at 01:16 PM.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by BioMechanic View Post
    Braun wins NL MVP. Not sure what to think. He had a great season, but Kemp had better numbers on a much worse team = more value, in terms of production. It had to have been decided due to the Brewers winning the Central.

    I'd argue Miguel Cabrera had more impact on the Tigers' season than Verlander too. I don't think a pitcher should ever win MVP.

    I still think the NL Cy should have been Ian Kennedy. Without him, Arizona doesn't win the division. Going by the same logic as MVP, the Dodgers missed the playoffs despite Kershaw's season, and the Phillies would have won their division without Halladay or Lee.
    The Cy Young award is just about who the writers thing was the best pitcher, not how he was valuable to his team. Halladay had the leg up in a lot of advanced metrics but Kershaw still was a worthy winner.
    http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=1739&dateline=1225393453

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Diff-chan View Post
    Good players are more valuable on bad teams than good ones.
    Not true, because when you're a complete failure, no one added enough value.

    That also prevents guys who see awesome pitches every at bat because they're already down 7-0 and no one cares from winning awards.

  8. But see, you're talking about different people now.

    If you're just talking about the most valuable player, even a guy like Cano is probably less valuable to the Yanks than say, Reyes on the Mets. The Mets need Reyes more just to keep up.

  9. Albert Pujols' agent is king douche.

    (This is quite the article.)
    Last edited by Brisco Bold; 24 Nov 2011 at 01:41 AM.

  10. Alex Antholopolous is the fucking man.



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	6395495687_0b79da934b_z.jpg 
Views:	139 
Size:	48.5 KB 
ID:	63753

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Games.com logo