MR

I've been wondering(for awhile now) why is it that sports orginizations hold on to ONE star player instead of dumping his large-ass salary and starting over again? When the Sox were trying to get Adrian Gonzalez from the Fransiscans I was thinking that they are only keeping him because he is ethnic(huge ethnic folowing in SD, plus he is a local boy), and the owners are ONLY concerned with the GATE(read: Bottom line), and not in fielding a competitive team. And other teams that are latching on to that ONE star player with no regards for being competitive are opening a new stadium and suspiciously want that, again, ONE huge draw for the GATE.

These teams will never win anything, and will consistantly hover near the basements of their respective divisions. Having that ONE great star player means jackshit when you have a subpar front office coupled with a less than stellar minor league system. And the confusing thing is the local fans fall for the same smoke and mirrors every year.

Gonzalez will not save the Padres, and Strasberg cannot, and will not be the Nats saviour....

Loyalty will only get you so far....sooner or later these players will tire of losing and the money will come second to the hope of winning a WS Ring.

Too bad they'll come to this realization too late and be over 30, thus limiting their options. Gotta love sports business.

2 words in agreement with you:

CHIPPER JONES

Depends on the sport... basketball teams are well justified in holding onto a marquee player. The other sports aren't as dependent on retaining a star like that... although if you have a franchise QB in his prime in football or an ace pitcher, you damn well better hold on to them... more so for the QB than the ace pitcher. If you have one ace and a buncha bums, he won't help that much. A franchise-caliber QB is nearly indispensable once he's there, although a franchise QB is not necessary to be good (see: Ravens of 00-01).

Plus with basketball, stars are huge draws. The Grizzlies attendance will be up this season even though Iverson was washed up years ago and it will help that struggling franchise...

StocktontoMalone wrote:I've been wondering(for awhile now) why is it that sports orginizations hold on to ONE star player instead of dumping his large-ass salary and starting over again? When the Sox were trying to get Adrian Gonzalez from the Fransiscans I was thinking that they are only keeping him because he is ethnic(huge ethnic folowing in SD, plus he is a local boy), and the owners are ONLY concerned with the GATE(read: Bottom line), and not in fielding a competitive team. And other teams that are latching on to that ONE star player with no regards for being competitive are opening a new stadium and suspiciously want that, again, ONE huge draw for the GATE.

These teams will never win anything, and will consistantly hover near the basements of their respective divisions. Having that ONE great star player means jackshit when you have a subpar front office coupled with a less than stellar minor league system. And the confusing thing is the local fans fall for the same smoke and mirrors every year.

Gonzalez will not save the Padres, and Strasberg cannot, and will not be the Nats saviour....

Loyalty will only get you so far....sooner or later these players will tire of losing and the money will come second to the hope of winning a WS Ring.

Too bad they'll come to this realization too late and be over 30, thus limiting their options. Gotta love sports business.

My opinion, I think the business side of sports will always prevail, and there's only one thing that keeps bad organizations around and it's money. When you have a bad organization, an owner or GM feels so much pressure on WINNING NOW that they go out and go into desperation mode and give the fans and team a so called "big name" that could make up that franchise for the time being, and hopefully win fans back in some respect, meaning more ticket sales, and merchandising. When teams, like the Lions, fuck up so bad building a team whether it's through a draft, or free agency, they tend to dish out the money and settle with big names that will create some buzz to a city, whether or not that certain player is a good fit or not. Pressure, and money are things to be taking serious in today's day in age when it comes to sports, and competing, and this is where GM's and owners drop the ball on building a respectable team that could result in patience.

YoungJRNY wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:I've been wondering(for awhile now) why is it that sports orginizations hold on to ONE star player instead of dumping his large-ass salary and starting over again? When the Sox were trying to get Adrian Gonzalez from the Fransiscans I was thinking that they are only keeping him because he is ethnic(huge ethnic folowing in SD, plus he is a local boy), and the owners are ONLY concerned with the GATE(read: Bottom line), and not in fielding a competitive team. And other teams that are latching on to that ONE star player with no regards for being competitive are opening a new stadium and suspiciously want that, again, ONE huge draw for the GATE.

These teams will never win anything, and will consistantly hover near the basements of their respective divisions. Having that ONE great star player means jackshit when you have a subpar front office coupled with a less than stellar minor league system. And the confusing thing is the local fans fall for the same smoke and mirrors every year.

Gonzalez will not save the Padres, and Strasberg cannot, and will not be the Nats saviour....

Loyalty will only get you so far....sooner or later these players will tire of losing and the money will come second to the hope of winning a WS Ring.

Too bad they'll come to this realization too late and be over 30, thus limiting their options. Gotta love sports business.

My opinion, I think the business side of sports will always prevail, and there's only one thing that keeps bad organizations around and it's money. When you have a bad organization, an owner or GM feels so much pressure on WINNING NOW that they go out and go into desperation mode and give the fans and team a so called "big name" that could make up that franchise for the time being, and hopefully win fans back in some respect, meaning more ticket sales, and merchandising. When teams, like the Lions, fuck up so bad building a team whether it's through a draft, or free agency, they tend to dish out the money and settle with big names that will create some buzz to a city, whether or not that certain player is a good fit or not. Pressure, and money are things to be taking serious in today's day in age when it comes to sports, and competing.

Spot on. Again, the Grizzlies are a great example right now.

Might even be saying the same thing about the Celtics in another couple years if they keep signing their free agents from the AARP YMCA league.

I kinda meant in baseball....I didn't make that point clear in my initial post. My bad.

I can see the retaining of a hoop star. They are involved in every play. But in baseball, they aren't. They could have an impact, and then they couldn't.

Seems to me all about getting fans to the ballpark, regardless if the team is good.

Something Harry Sinden and the Bruins fans know all too well about. Bruins have a habit of never signing a 'star'....ever.

But the fans still show up. This was the 80s and 90s, but it does illustrate my point about how the owners know fans will still show up - even for a shitty team.

Ehwmatt wrote:

YoungJRNY wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:I've been wondering(for awhile now) why is it that sports orginizations hold on to ONE star player instead of dumping his large-ass salary and starting over again? When the Sox were trying to get Adrian Gonzalez from the Fransiscans I was thinking that they are only keeping him because he is ethnic(huge ethnic folowing in SD, plus he is a local boy), and the owners are ONLY concerned with the GATE(read: Bottom line), and not in fielding a competitive team. And other teams that are latching on to that ONE star player with no regards for being competitive are opening a new stadium and suspiciously want that, again, ONE huge draw for the GATE.

These teams will never win anything, and will consistantly hover near the basements of their respective divisions. Having that ONE great star player means jackshit when you have a subpar front office coupled with a less than stellar minor league system. And the confusing thing is the local fans fall for the same smoke and mirrors every year.

Gonzalez will not save the Padres, and Strasberg cannot, and will not be the Nats saviour....

Loyalty will only get you so far....sooner or later these players will tire of losing and the money will come second to the hope of winning a WS Ring.

Too bad they'll come to this realization too late and be over 30, thus limiting their options. Gotta love sports business.

My opinion, I think the business side of sports will always prevail, and there's only one thing that keeps bad organizations around and it's money. When you have a bad organization, an owner or GM feels so much pressure on WINNING NOW that they go out and go into desperation mode and give the fans and team a so called "big name" that could make up that franchise for the time being, and hopefully win fans back in some respect, meaning more ticket sales, and merchandising. When teams, like the Lions, fuck up so bad building a team whether it's through a draft, or free agency, they tend to dish out the money and settle with big names that will create some buzz to a city, whether or not that certain player is a good fit or not. Pressure, and money are things to be taking serious in today's day in age when it comes to sports, and competing.

Spot on. Again, the Grizzlies are a great example right now.

Might even be saying the same thing about the Celtics in another couple years if they keep signing their free agents from the AARP YMCA league.

Look at the Redskins. They signed a GM in Daniel Snyder (Who was a huge FAN of the team before hand, caution right there) who completely spends the bank on players who have the marquee value, but it has NEVER worked out since his tenure there, and it never will. The 100 million dollar contract to Hayneworth seals that deal. NO DEFENSIVE TACKLE IS WORTH THAT KIND OF DOUGH. Another thing, GM's get too caught up in running the team and making personal decisions (Snyder..Jones) that it cause's rifts between the higher ups and the coaching staff. These organizations need to let the coaches coach, while they take care of finance. Even you're Cleveland Browns were the victim of this over the years. Bringing in big names that don't fit just to give the city to hope for a winning product NOW.

StocktontoMalone wrote:I've been wondering(for awhile now) why is it that sports orginizations hold on to ONE star player instead of dumping his large-ass salary and starting over again? When the Sox were trying to get Adrian Gonzalez from the Fransiscans I was thinking that they are only keeping him because he is ethnic(huge ethnic folowing in SD, plus he is a local boy), and the owners are ONLY concerned with the GATE(read: Bottom line), and not in fielding a competitive team. And other teams that are latching on to that ONE star player with no regards for being competitive are opening a new stadium and suspiciously want that, again, ONE huge draw for the GATE.

These teams will never win anything, and will consistantly hover near the basements of their respective divisions. Having that ONE great star player means jackshit when you have a subpar front office coupled with a less than stellar minor league system. And the confusing thing is the local fans fall for the same smoke and mirrors every year.

Gonzalez will not save the Padres, and Strasberg cannot, and will not be the Nats saviour....

Loyalty will only get you so far....sooner or later these players will tire of losing and the money will come second to the hope of winning a WS Ring.

Too bad they'll come to this realization too late and be over 30, thus limiting their options. Gotta love sports business.

Let’s look at the example you brought up. The Padres are not loyal at all and would have traded Adrian Gonzalez if the offer was right. If they were as myopic as you state they would have never gotten rid of Peavy because he was the draw. Adrian is just having his coming out party this year as the face of the franchise. Remember, we are talking about a franchise with one marquee player in its history, Tony Gwynn. Look who they have developed and then traded away Dave Winfield, Ozzie Smith, Ozzie Guillen, Derek Lee, Benito Santiago, Gary Sheffield, Roberto Alomar, Sandy Alomar Jr., Jason Bay, Andy Benes, and John Kruk. This is just the tip of the iceberg as far as that goes.

The Padres are a poorly run mid-level team. The main reason they have struggled the last two years is relying on low level free agents and not developing their own players. Poor drafting is also a big part of this. See Matt Bush as an example. They will trade Adrian Gonzalez within the next three years if they are not successful. Remember they control his rights for another two years and he is getting less than $4 million a year. Marquee player on a budget, to trade a player like this would take a monster offer from another club. Look at what they got for Peavy, 4 top level pitching prospects. The youth movement is working too. They have Kyle Blanks, Evereth Cabrera, Will Venable , and a handful of starting and relief pitchers that have proven they are major league ready. After July 28th they had the third best record in the NL. I would look for them to be decent next year, and if all goes well they will contend the next.

IMO Strasberg can help the Nats, but they have to give them support. There are not too many examples like the situation you are proposing. Most of the have not teams get rid of all their quality players.

Hollywood wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:I've been wondering(for awhile now) why is it that sports orginizations hold on to ONE star player instead of dumping his large-ass salary and starting over again? When the Sox were trying to get Adrian Gonzalez from the Fransiscans I was thinking that they are only keeping him because he is ethnic(huge ethnic folowing in SD, plus he is a local boy), and the owners are ONLY concerned with the GATE(read: Bottom line), and not in fielding a competitive team. And other teams that are latching on to that ONE star player with no regards for being competitive are opening a new stadium and suspiciously want that, again, ONE huge draw for the GATE.

These teams will never win anything, and will consistantly hover near the basements of their respective divisions. Having that ONE great star player means jackshit when you have a subpar front office coupled with a less than stellar minor league system. And the confusing thing is the local fans fall for the same smoke and mirrors every year.

Gonzalez will not save the Padres, and Strasberg cannot, and will not be the Nats saviour....

Loyalty will only get you so far....sooner or later these players will tire of losing and the money will come second to the hope of winning a WS Ring.

Too bad they'll come to this realization too late and be over 30, thus limiting their options. Gotta love sports business.

Let’s look at the example you brought up. The Padres are not loyal at all and would have traded Adrian Gonzalez if the offer was right. If they were as myopic as you state they would have never gotten rid of Peavy because he was the draw. Adrian is just having his coming out party this year as the face of the franchise. Remember, we are talking about a franchise with one marquee player in its history, Tony Gwynn. Look who they have developed and then traded away Dave Winfield, Ozzie Smith, Ozzie Guillen, Derek Lee, Benito Santiago, Gary Sheffield, Roberto Alomar, Sandy Alomar Jr., Jason Bay, Andy Benes, and John Kruk. This is just the tip of the iceberg as far as that goes.

The Padres are a poorly run mid-level team. The main reason they have struggled the last two years is relying on low level free agents and not developing their own players. Poor drafting is also a big part of this. See Matt Bush as an example. They will trade Adrian Gonzalez within the next three years if they are not successful. Remember they control his rights for another two years and he is getting less than $4 million a year. Marquee player on a budget, to trade a player like this would take a monster offer from another club. Look at what they got for Peavy, 4 top level pitching prospects. The youth movement is working too. They have Kyle Blanks, Evereth Cabrera, Will Venable , and a handful of starting and relief pitchers that have proven they are major league ready. After July 28th they had the third best record in the NL. I would look for them to be decent next year, and if all goes well they will contend the next.

IMO Strasberg can help the Nats, but they have to give them support. There are not too many examples like the situation you are proposing. Most of the have not teams get rid of all their quality players.

My Alex Gonzalex example is straight out of the EXACT reason why they would not let him go: Local, ethnic athlete. Huge draw at the gate. Unless management surrounds him with likewise talent...he is nothing but a cashgrab.

Ehwmatt wrote:Might even be saying the same thing about the Celtics in another couple years if they keep signing their free agents from the AARP YMCA league.

Interesting comment to make given the old, washed up fuck you have in your avatar! The Celtics may have signed Allen and Garnett at their advanced age, but it resulted in a championship, IMMEDIATELY! Rasheed may result in another one, if Garnett remains healthy!

When will Boston get rid of Jason Varitek ? It's getting close to that time I'm afraid.

Enigma869 wrote:

Ehwmatt wrote:Might even be saying the same thing about the Celtics in another couple years if they keep signing their free agents from the AARP YMCA league.

Interesting comment to make given the old, washed up fuck you have in your avatar! The Celtics may have signed Allen and Garnett at their advanced age, but it resulted in a championship, IMMEDIATELY! Rasheed may result in another one, if Garnett remains healthy!

I think so!!!!

JSS Rocks! wrote:When will Boston get rid of Jason Varitek ? It's getting close to that time I'm afraid.

Varitek has been washed up for years. He has a player option for about 3 million dollars for next season. I'd be shocked if he didn't exercise that option, because there isn't another team in the majors who is paying this guy, based on his AWFUL production the past several seasons. Luckily for the Red Sox, they now have Victor Martinez and he's the second best hitting catcher in the majors behind Joe Mauer. This won't be the Red Sox season. I wouldn't be stunned to see them lose to Anaheim. They definitely won't get by the Yankees this season!

Totally Agree....


Alex Rodriguez



The guy may be incredibly productive in May, April and the end of September.....but I am fully convinced that he will never wear a World Series ring. He is not a team player, he's clubhouse poison....and the proof is in the pudding. He has played on teams that otherwise should have gone all the way, but didn't....in no small part to him.

Then there's the whole fact that he's a roid-loaded cheater.....but I'll ignore that for now.

The Yankees want him around because they want him to beat another roid-loaded cheater's home run record in pinstripes...yeah, I get it. At a rather deep sacrifice....however.

Enigma869 wrote:

Ehwmatt wrote:Might even be saying the same thing about the Celtics in another couple years if they keep signing their free agents from the AARP YMCA league.

Interesting comment to make given the old, washed up fuck you have in your avatar! The Celtics may have signed Allen and Garnett at their advanced age, but it resulted in a championship, IMMEDIATELY! Rasheed may result in another one, if Garnett remains healthy!

Rasheed is a joke unless he proves otherwise to me. Shaq, on the other hand, had a great year last year despite not being in an ideal situation for him team-wise/style-wise. I'm a little worried about how Shaq's gonna fit in here, but it's exciting and I have high hopes. Shaq is coming off yet another All Star season, Sheed is coming off one of the worst seasons of his career. I know which one I'll take. Shaq certainly seems to be better for the wear than old knobby knees KG at this point too.

It's really interesting to me... you guys could turn out to be great or awful depending on the shape of the old guys. I'm really hoping for an EC finals meeting between us if things pan out. LeBron, Shaq, Mo, Delonte, Parker, Moon, J.J., and of course Powe (please be able to come back strong) vs Allen, Pierce, Garnett, Big Baby, Rondo, Sheed, Perkins and whoever else? That should make for absolutely riveting, physical ball.

Enigma869 wrote:

JSS Rocks! wrote:When will Boston get rid of Jason Varitek ? It's getting close to that time I'm afraid.

Varitek has been washed up for years. He has a player option for about 3 million dollars for next season. I'd be shocked if he didn't exercise that option, because there isn't another team in the majors who is paying this guy, based on his AWFUL production the past several seasons. Luckily for the Red Sox, they now have Victor Martinez and he's the second best hitting catcher in the majors behind Joe Mauer. This won't be the Red Sox season. I wouldn't be stunned to see them lose to Anaheim. They definitely won't get by the Yankees this season!

"You're very welcome for that, please send me a few more bags of chips to complete the trade"

-Mark Shapiro

Ehwmatt wrote:Rasheed is a joke unless he proves otherwise to me. Shaq, on the other hand, had a great year last year despite not being in an ideal situation for him team-wise/style-wise. I'm a little worried about how Shaq's gonna fit in here, but it's exciting and I have high hopes. Shaq is coming off yet another All Star season, Sheed is coming off one of the worst seasons of his career. I know which one I'll take. Shaq certainly seems to be better for the wear than old knobby knees KG at this point too.

It's really interesting to me... you guys could turn out to be great or awful depending on the shape of the old guys. I'm really hoping for an EC finals meeting between us if things pan out. LeBron, Shaq, Mo, Delonte, Parker, Moon, J.J., and of course Powe (please be able to come back strong) vs Allen, Pierce, Garnett, Big Baby, Rondo, Sheed, Perkins and whoever else? That should make for absolutely riveting, physical ball.

Honestly, I could care less what a factor Rasheed is or isn't. The Celtics won a championship without the guy and are good enough to win another one. That said, no team with LeBron James can be taken lightly. Eventually this guy is going to win some championships. As for your comment about Garnett...It's a bit silly of a comment to make. Sure, he did get injured last season, but it's not like the guy has a history of injuries. Last season was only the second time in his long career that he missed any significant playing time.

Enigma869 wrote:

Ehwmatt wrote:Rasheed is a joke unless he proves otherwise to me. Shaq, on the other hand, had a great year last year despite not being in an ideal situation for him team-wise/style-wise. I'm a little worried about how Shaq's gonna fit in here, but it's exciting and I have high hopes. Shaq is coming off yet another All Star season, Sheed is coming off one of the worst seasons of his career. I know which one I'll take. Shaq certainly seems to be better for the wear than old knobby knees KG at this point too.

It's really interesting to me... you guys could turn out to be great or awful depending on the shape of the old guys. I'm really hoping for an EC finals meeting between us if things pan out. LeBron, Shaq, Mo, Delonte, Parker, Moon, J.J., and of course Powe (please be able to come back strong) vs Allen, Pierce, Garnett, Big Baby, Rondo, Sheed, Perkins and whoever else? That should make for absolutely riveting, physical ball.

Honestly, I could care less what a factor Rasheed is or isn't. The Celtics won a championship without the guy and are good enough to win another one. That said, no team with LeBron James can be taken lightly. Eventually this guy is going to win some championships. As for your comment about Garnett...It's a bit silly of a comment to make. Sure, he did get injured last season, but it's not like the guy has a history of injuries. Last season was only the second time in his long career that he missed any significant playing time.

Well, my suspicions about KG arise from (1) The "1000" game mark has historically proven to be a downward turning point in most big men's careers (which incidentally is right around when he got hurt last year) and (2) I don't think the Cs are being extremely forthcoming about the shape he's in. Like I said, you guys could be really good this year, or things could get ugly with injuries or just plain old slowdowns. You guys will miss Posey again and Powe is a pretty big loss if he can return to healthy form. Big Baby's emergence should help, if he can keep up what he did in the playoffs last year. Rondo, like Delonte given his recent antics for us, is a question mark as well... can the relationship between him and the Cs stay good enough? Things were strained at one point and he was being shopped.

I love LeBron, but I'm really hoping that if Shaq contributes nothing else, he helps LeBron lead. LeBron hasn't exactly shown he's got leadership when it counts, when the chips are down. Sure, he can dance on the sidelines when they are winning by 20 and the 3rd stringers are holding down the fort. But sometimes I feel like he doesn't get on his teammates when the chips are down to try and wake them up, instead opting to play the 1 on 5 game. A great leader will find a way to wake his team up when the NBA finals or a big playoff game is on the line.

People are all but handing the Lakers the West, but I think Denver is poised to be tough and I think the Spurs have one more good run in them with the key additions they've made in the offseason. This is gonna be an electrifying NBA season.