Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005 |
Moneypaul
Whatever you might think of the Dodgers' offseason moves -- and I have come around to a more or less positive view of them, despite my earlier misgivings -- in the end they have been so radical that they do require some selling. This piece appearing in the Daily Breeze has one good point: Beane-era Oakland, for all its Moneyball fame, is not a good way to sell the offseason changes to a skeptical public:
Thoughts bubble up while listening to Paul DePodesta patiently explain where he is going with the Dodgers.You know the drill: always the bridesmaid, never a World Series appearance. Well: overpaying a bit for Derek Lowe and Odalis Perez insulates DePodesta from the charge of "fire sale", but we only know how this ends up in September. The question remains, did he spend wisely?The question thrown at DePodesta concerned the degree of difficulty operating in a winter marketplace dominated by the free-spending Yankees and Mets.
"On Opening Day, payroll disappears," he said.
Good way to put it.
"That's one thing I learned in Oakland," he continued.
Bad way to put it.
Comments:
So because Oakland did not win a World Series, the fact that they won more games than any other team in the last five years of DePo's tenure is irrelevant? There was no difference between the A's and the Pirates?
In 20 years people will probably have to stop and think who won the World Series in, say, 2003. They won't have any trouble remembering which team set the American League record for consecutive wins.
In 20 years people will probably have to stop and think who won the World Series in, say, 2003. They won't have any trouble remembering which team set the American League record for consecutive wins.
Ah, so Beane's inability to play capture the flag is immaterial? Try that line over on Athletics Nation. I mean, sure, winning the division is great and good, but winning it all is what brings you the glory. And I guarantee that fewer people will remember the Division Series and LCS winners in five years than who won the World Series.
I don't even remember which team set the American League record for consecutive wins right now, in 2005.
# posted by 
: 1/12/2005 11:16:00 AM
: 1/12/2005 11:16:00 AM
The only reason people will remember that record in 20 years is if some team approaches it or breaks it (probably around win 15). And that's the thing about records...they can be broken and then you will be forgotten, but no one ever takes your championship away and that will be in the record books forever. No one remembers the also-ran teams. How many people remember that the Cubs were a damn good team in the late 80s? How many people remember the Dodgers won the World Series in 1988?
> "How many people remember that the Cubs were a damn good team in the late 80s?"
Cubs fans. Cubs fans remember minute accomplishments, Cubs accomplishments. That's what we have to remember. And as a Cubs fan, I can say that winning a World Series is the standard by which success is measured in baseball.
Everything else good is close, but this ain't horseshoes. Everything else is a panacea. Those lesser-than achievements bring about wistfulness, not a feeling of true greatness. "If only.." Argh. 1969. Ron Santo clicking his heels. What should have been, but wasn't. *That's* what you remember, the last part of that sentence, the lack of a cigar.
21 (It was 21, wasn't it?) consecutive wins - but no ring. It won't ever be remembered without that caveat.
Cubs fans. Cubs fans remember minute accomplishments, Cubs accomplishments. That's what we have to remember. And as a Cubs fan, I can say that winning a World Series is the standard by which success is measured in baseball.
Everything else good is close, but this ain't horseshoes. Everything else is a panacea. Those lesser-than achievements bring about wistfulness, not a feeling of true greatness. "If only.." Argh. 1969. Ron Santo clicking his heels. What should have been, but wasn't. *That's* what you remember, the last part of that sentence, the lack of a cigar.
21 (It was 21, wasn't it?) consecutive wins - but no ring. It won't ever be remembered without that caveat.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.