Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What does a posteason appearance cost?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What does a posteason appearance cost?

    If you take the total salaries paid at the end of the season by each team over the past ten years and divide it by their number of postseason appearances, here is what you get.
    Team Millions
    Rays $162
    Cardinals $198
    Pirates $222
    Rangers $230
    Athletics $245
    Indians $263
    Red Sox $282
    Phillies $286
    Dodgers $295
    Cubs $299
    Reds $311
    Giants $322
    Nationals $339
    Braves $355
    Angels $356
    Tigers $367
    Yankees $373
    Orioles $377
    Diamondbacks $416
    Royals $447
    Rockies $455
    Brewers $457
    Twins $464
    Blue Jays $547
    Mets $618
    Astros $831
    White Sox $1,121
    Marlins inf
    Mariners inf
    Padres inf

  • #2
    My point here is that a total rebuild like the Astros did is not fun at all. Even if they get a postseason appearance this season, they would be lucky to break into the top 20 in cost per postseason appearance. It has been pure misery for real baseball fans in Houston for a long time. Their future really doesn't look all the bright when you consider who they will be losing soon.

    On the other hand, the Cardinals look like a great model. The Cardinals and Red Sox seem to be the most successful teams over the past ten years in terms of what they have spent per postseason appearances in that they actually have some World Series Championships mixed in with that. Our Rangers are a highly successful team except for the lack of a World Series Championship.

    The Rangers goal should not be a tear down and rebuild. It should be to get into the postseason a lot. The World Series Championship should come to them if they do. It has for the Cardinals and Red Sox. The Rays, A's and Pirates deserves some accolades, but the Astros certainly have not earned them and unless they go really far in the postseason or win a World Series this year they don't deserve them for tearing down their team and rebuilding. It's not the path to success. The only total teardown I see that looks like it might bring success is the Phillies, but we don't know that, yet. LOL at the White Sox and Mets.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Flounder1 View Post
      My point here is that a total rebuild like the Astros did is not fun at all. Even if they get a postseason appearance this season, they would be lucky to break into the top 20 in cost per postseason appearance. It has been pure misery for real baseball fans in Houston for a long time. Their future really doesn't look all the bright when you consider who they will be losing soon.

      On the other hand, the Cardinals look like a great model. The Cardinals and Red Sox seem to be the most successful teams over the past ten years in terms of what they have spent per postseason appearances in that they actually have some World Series Championships mixed in with that. Our Rangers are a highly successful team except for the lack of a World Series Championship.

      The Rangers goal should not be a tear down and rebuild. It should be to get into the postseason a lot. The World Series Championship should come to them if they do. It has for the Cardinals and Red Sox. The Rays, A's and Pirates deserves some accolades, but the Astros certainly have not earned them and unless they go really far in the postseason or win a World Series this year they don't deserve them for tearing down their team and rebuilding. It's not the path to success. The only total teardown I see that looks like it might bring success is the Phillies, but we don't know that, yet. LOL at the White Sox and Mets.

      Are the Cardinals in the playoffs this year?

      Comment


      • #4
        According to David Schoenfield at ESPN Senior... here are the four warning signs a team is in decline:

        1. Age

        2. Lack of depth

        3. Poor minor league system

        4. Financial resources tied up or limited

        I'm not going to take the time to re-hash again how this describes the Rangers...but to some palpable degree Texas ticks all four boxes..

        If you asked every MLB general manager: Is rebuilding for losers? I suspect all...or almost all...would just laugh at he silliness of the question.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ProfarMVP View Post
          I'm not going to take the time to re-hash again how this describes the Rangers....
          That's good, because you would be wrong. Texas was the 11th youngest team this year and has plenty of financial resources. Its minor league system isn't poor, it just has most of its talent concentrated at the lower levels.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ProfarMVP View Post


            Are the Cardinals in the playoffs this year?
            The season isn't over yet. They are two games out of the WC and 4 behind the Cubs.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ProfarMVP View Post
              According to David Schoenfield at ESPN Senior... here are the four warning signs a team is in decline:

              1. Age

              2. Lack of depth

              3. Poor minor league system

              4. Financial resources tied up or limited

              I'm not going to take the time to re-hash again how this describes the Rangers...but to some palpable degree Texas ticks all four boxes..

              If you asked every MLB general manager: Is rebuilding for losers? I suspect all...or almost all...would just laugh at he silliness of the question.
              You do realize that the Houston Astros' offense is older than the Rangers? The only really older players the Rangers have on offense are Beltre, Napoli, and Choo and they have enough in the minors to take their place right now. As for poor minor league system, I'd hide and wait until some of the prospect rankings come out next season. I think you'll see more Rangers in the top 100 than current. They've had a couple of pretty darn good drafts. The only problem right now in the system is that they don't have a lot of almost ready pitching. In fact, with Profar, Guzman, and Calhoun sitting at AAA, I'd say they have an overabundance of position guys right now. If you've read anything at all in the minor league section, there are some good young arms in the lower part of the system.

              The Rangers really don't have limited financial resources either. The budget will be what Bob and Ray say it is and they haven't shown that they are cheap.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Redcap View Post

                You do realize that the Houston Astros' offense is older than the Rangers? The only really older players the Rangers have on offense are Beltre, Napoli, and Choo and they have enough in the minors to take their place right now. As for poor minor league system, I'd hide and wait until some of the prospect rankings come out next season. I think you'll see more Rangers in the top 100 than current. They've had a couple of pretty darn good drafts. The only problem right now in the system is that they don't have a lot of almost ready pitching. In fact, with Profar, Guzman, and Calhoun sitting at AAA, I'd say they have an overabundance of position guys right now. If you've read anything at all in the minor league section, there are some good young arms in the lower part of the system.

                The Rangers really don't have limited financial resources either. The budget will be what Bob and Ray say it is and they haven't shown that they are cheap.
                Great post and great response. I agree entirely.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Redcap View Post
                  The Rangers really don't have limited financial resources either. The budget will be what Bob and Ray say it is and they haven't shown that they are cheap.
                  Exactly, I remember these same comments that the Rangers didn't have the budget to pursue Yu Darvish and he is already at the end of his contract.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Flounder1 View Post
                    The Rangers goal should not be a tear down and rebuild. It should be to get into the postseason a lot.
                    It's not quite that simple, of course. It all depends on the circumstances. Trying to build a winning team when the money and/or talent just isn't there is a waste of time and resources and leads to bad moves such as the Adrian Gonzalez trade and the A-Rod signing. Rebuilding isn't always fun or easy or even all that successful, but neither is wasting money and prospects only to end up no better or even sometimes worse than before.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kaisersoze View Post

                      That's good, because you would be wrong. Texas was the 11th youngest team this year and has plenty of financial resources. Its minor league system isn't poor, it just has most of its talent concentrated at the lower levels.
                      Averages, especially when expressed in that manner, are sometimes not as impressive as they sound. The difference between Texas and the oldest team, aside from representing 2/3 of MLB, is only two years on average. When considered independently, Texas' age and money situation is isn't too bad. When you combine them, however, it becomes not good. They have a whole lot of money tied up in aging players at critical positions like Hamels, Choo, Beltre, and Fielder. The best and cheapest of which (Beltre) will probably be the first to leave. Houston only has three players over the age of 34. One of which is Beltran who is a free agent this year. The other two are Sipp, who does not play a very critical role, and newly acquired Verlander.

                      A team can be successful with limited financial flexibility. A team can be successful with older players. A team can even be successful with a so-so farm system. When you have all three, however, it becomes pretty difficult. Texas has all three to varying degrees. Yes, they have a lot of money coming off the books, but they also have a lot of needs to address. Yes, they're not a very old team on average, however, they have a lot of money in declining, aging players whom they can't easily move. Yes, they have some talent in the minors, but they currently rank in the bottom 1/3 in baseball and The Dude will be surprised f they crawl out of the bottom half in baseball next season.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You left out McCann who will turn 34 in February which is old for a catcher who has put in a bunch of innings along with Gurriel whos is 33. Fielder's money doesn't really account for that much with the amount that Detroit is picking up plus the insurance money the Rangers receive. The only thing to take a hit with Fielder is having to hold a spot on the 40 man for him.

                        The Astros have also been rather lucky this year that players like Springer, Altuve, Gonzalez, and Reddick (who has either been really lucky this year or has suddenly figured out how to hit lefties after being essentially a platoon player.) Where the Astros are going to have to spend more big money to be successful is in the starting rotation (like they did on Verlander). Keuchel, McHugh, and McCullers haven't shown that they can stay particularly healthy and I can see their top pitching prospect, Martes, winding up in the bullpen due to extreme control problems.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by RangerDude2016 View Post

                          Averages, especially when expressed in that manner, are sometimes not as impressive as they sound. The difference between Texas and the oldest team, aside from representing 2/3 of MLB, is only two years on average. When considered independently, Texas' age and money situation is isn't too bad. When you combine them, however, it becomes not good. They have a whole lot of money tied up in aging players at critical positions like Hamels, Choo, Beltre, and Fielder. The best and cheapest of which (Beltre) will probably be the first to leave. Houston only has three players over the age of 34. One of which is Beltran who is a free agent this year. The other two are Sipp, who does not play a very critical role, and newly acquired Verlander.

                          A team can be successful with limited financial flexibility. A team can be successful with older players. A team can even be successful with a so-so farm system. When you have all three, however, it becomes pretty difficult. Texas has all three to varying degrees. Yes, they have a lot of money coming off the books, but they also have a lot of needs to address. Yes, they're not a very old team on average, however, they have a lot of money in declining, aging players whom they can't easily move. Yes, they have some talent in the minors, but they currently rank in the bottom 1/3 in baseball and The Dude will be surprised f they crawl out of the bottom half in baseball next season.
                          It looks like you may be falling into the same self imposed trap that you did with Cashner. You're focusing on the negatives signs and ignoring the positive signs and in fact you are exaggerating the negatives.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by RangerDude2016 View Post

                            They have a whole lot of money tied up in aging players at critical positions like Hamels, Choo, Beltre, and Fielder. The best and cheapest of which (Beltre) will probably be the first to leave. Houston only has three players over the age of 34.
                            Absolutely classic Dud post.

                            The Rangers have three players over 34, which means they are terrible.

                            However, the Astros have three players over 34, which means they are great.

                            Got it!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Doug View Post

                              It looks like you may be falling into the same self imposed trap that you did with Cashner. You're focusing on the negatives signs and ignoring the positive signs and in fact you are exaggerating the negatives.
                              If you google the phrase "uses statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination", you will find The Dud's picture next to it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X