Building success, not buying it

Last blog I wrote, I talked about how big market teams seem to take advantage of all the money they have an basically buy players. Well all the small market teams in the playoffs said pshaw to that. All three small market teams in the playoffs are winning their respective series in the ALDS and don't seem to be letting go of that vicegrip. The Indians, Rockies, and Diamondbacks all are, what my last post would consider, small market teams. How did these teams get to be so good using so little money? Great minor league systems, scouting, and trades for minor league players. Lets take the Indians for example; 15 of the 25 players on the active team, including all-stars Victor Martinez, Grady Sizemore, and CC Sabathia, all came up through the Indians farm system since 2002. Arizona has 17 players, including CY Young winner Brandon Webb, on their team. Colorado has 16 players, including all-stars Matt Holliday and Todd Helton, that came up through that farm system. What does that tell us about small market teams? They do more work to get the good players, but they also save the money the big market teams would spend. What lesson can we learn from all this? It doesn't matter how much money you have, it's all about how you use what's around you to do what you need done. If more teams had the forsight and knowledge of the Indians, Rockies, and Diamondbacks, there would be many more exciting endings at the end of September, like this year, than there have been over past years.

David vs Goliath

In the story of David vs Goliath, the ultimate underdog story, David wins. It makes everyone feel better about themselves. David winning doesn't seem to be the case in Major League Baseball though. Over the last 7 years, guess how many small market teams there have been in the World Series. Two, the Marlins and the Diamondbacks who both won their respective World Series. Out of 14 teams, though, 12 of them are considered "big market" teams. Now what I would consider to be a big market team (since there is no true definition) is a team that has a salary over $80 million. That leaves about 15 "small market" teams and 2 of those are only by hundreds of dollars. The highest salary team, the New York Yankees, has one player, Alex Rodriguez (making over $27 million), who is paid more than the entire Tampa Bay Devil Rays team put together (salary of a little over $24 million). The Yankees also have two more players who make only 3 million less than the Devil Rays are making (Jason Giambi at $23.4 million and Derek Jeter at $21.6 million). Now a lot of people say that spending doesn't translate into wins, but out of the big market teams, 12 of them were in playoff contention into the last month of the season. The only ones not were the White Sox, the Giants, and the Astros. Right now, 6 of them look to be making it into the playoffs out of 8 spots. On the flip side, only 5 small market teams were in playoff contention into the last month of the season. Only two of those will for sure make it, the Indians and one (maybe two) of the Diamondbacks, the Padres, and the Rockies. Looking at the standings, it seems as though spending money makes the playoffs. Case in point, the New York Yankees have had the highest salary for years and they haven't missed a playoff in at least 12 years now going on 13. I'm not saying I like the whole buying players to win a championship idea. Not by a long shot. The only thing is though is that it seems to be working. Is it ethically right for teams who have more media coverage and more chances to make money to completely use that to their advantage? No, but Goliath seems to win a whole lot more fights in the Major Leagues.

Buying Players, Destoying Hope

Since the 2006 FIFA World Cup, I have become an avid fan of soccer. It's fun to play, watch, and talk about even. The one player who has become my favorite is Fernando Torres from Spain. They call him "El Nino" because he's young and a very strong leader to a very good Spanish team. i started following him as he played for Spain and Athletico in the Madrid Premiere League in Europe. During the summer, Torres signed a 6-year deal with Liverpool. (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=443360&cc=5901) He was still signed to a contract with Atletico, which put them in a perdicament of taking a lot of money but losing their best young player. This got me to thinking, why is it that no other sport but soccer lets teams talk to a player that is still contractiually obligated to a team? If all other sport did this then the Yankees would have Brandon Webb, Ryan Howard, Vladamir Guerrero among other players by just buying them away from teams because no matter how you feel the owner might look at it, it's still a business and they would more than likely take that huge lot of money. I find this to be utterly rediculous. I like the way the just about every other professional sport handles players; wait until the player is not under contract before teams can talk to them. This leaves the playing field a little more fair. That way teams such as the Yankees and Red Sox can't just say, "Well Jake Peavy is having a really good season. Let's buy him away from the Padres." Take David Beckham for example. He was still under contract with Real Madrid before the LA Galaxy offered $250 million dollars to him. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2786923) Real Madrid was put in just as much of a perdicament with this move as Atletico was with the Torres move. How does this affect people as a whole? Well it may not, but it does make you look at whether or not players are truely loyal to a team. At that, if teams are even really loyal to their players. As a fan of soccer, I find it hard to believe this is any good for the sport. I like knwoing my favorite player will stay on the same team (same country at that) for their entire contract. I feel this could hurt the sport of soccer not only here in America, where it isn't even a 2nd tier sport anymore, and around the world.

Why the Difference?

In team sports it's common courtesy to not run up the score on your opponent. In basketball and the NFL you put in the reserves, in baseball you throw in your young guys, and in all three you try to get the game over with as soon as possible. Two leagues, though don't like to go by this courtesy rule. The BCS and in all of soccer, coaches want you to run up the score. In every soccer league (UEFA or MLS) the way ties are broken up is by their goal difference. In the BCS, not only do you need to have a basically perfect season (which is another thing I have a problem with) but you also need to win by as much as possible. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't feel this sends a good message to children. Is it an easy way to figure out a tie breaker? Sure but it's not the way any other sport does it. I feel the idea that you need to score as much possible just send the idea to kids that being completely aggressive and not have ANY compassion for the other team or anyone in their lives at all. Aggression can be good thing in sports but many people do take what they do on the sports field and use it in their lives. Kids don’t need reasons to be overly aggressive. I think the better thing would be for soccer and college football to conform to the tie breakers other sports do.

The Beginning

For some teams it's the beginning of the pennant run, others the beginning of a season, and for a select few the "unprecedented fall from No. 5 to unranked" (Associated Press Sept 5). This is one of the most exciting and eventful time in sports for just about anyone who likes sports. Players getting into their grooves, players losing their groove and helping their team plumit, and players that are always in a groove that just keep on the note. For a good amount of people, though, it's the beginning of the school year, college or high school. The other way you could look at it is that it's the end of summer, however great or terrible it might have been. Just like anything else, beginnings have to do with people trying to get into their grooves, people losing their grooves, and people never having missed a beat. It's always exciting to get back into what you are doing, whether it's football, baseball, or school. People never want to get out or stay out of a groove. That could mean the end of a lot of good things that have been given to you, whether they be scholorships or just someone putting their hope in you. Any way you may want to put it, beginnings can help or hurt toward in the long wrong. A good start can put you where the Red Sox and Mets are, comfortably ahead of the pack and you can coast. Or bad starts can put you where the Phillies, Yankees, and Cubs are, clawing with all you have just to make it where you were supposed to. So in all, there are plenty of different beginnings in the world. Which one would you rather start strong at?