betED.com - The View from the Couch - by Gavin McDougald!
October 11th, 2006 - Oh-fer get it
If you are here looking for some guaranteed 100% picks for the remainder of Major League Baseball playoffs, I have some vital information that you simply have to have:
You?ve come to the wrong place.
I went oh-fer in the Division Series. As in zero for four.
But wait; before you go scrambling a Google Search looking up ?guaranteed 100% picks,? I have an excuse. I?m old school. I, like many of you I suspect (or hope), thought money equated success ? and the tried tested and theoretically true formula that in baseball you can buy a championship still held true.
Not anymore apparently.
It was only three years ago that the Detroit Tigers lost 119 games. This year, with 13 teams above them in annual team salaries, they took out the $199-million Yankees, and hardly broke a sweat doing it.
Now they are taking on Oakland (and taking it to them if game one was any indication) in the ALCS. The A?s rank 21st out of MLB's 30 teams with a $62 million payroll.
Sitting at home watching, and trying to figure out what went wrong are those damned Yankees, along with the Red Sox and their $120-million payout. As well as the Angels ($104-million), as well as the White Sox ($103-million), as well as?
We, (or at least I), have been conditioned to believe that World Series appearances and therefore championships are strictly reserved for the big spenders. Sure, there were the rare aberrations like the long-shot Anaheim Angels in 2002 and the Florida Marlins in 2003, but more often than not, at least back into the end of the last century anyway, the rich ruled.
So ? how come? How can teams that outspend other teams two, or in the Yankees case, three to one and lose? I mean, how can that add up? As much as it pains me to admit, it?s because of baseball Commissioner Bud ?Not so Lite anymore? Selig and his often criticized revenue-sharing.
The first year it was introduced it had little or no impact because all-told, the luxury tax equated to about $48-million dollars. Spread out through the smaller revenue teams, that money was equivalent to the salary of a second string outfielder.
This year however the pot was much more substantial - to the tune of $323-million! Now we?re talking star player money, or enough to sign a number of utility players to give almost-there teams the push they needed to put them over the top.
The Tigers got $25 million in revenue sharing at the end of last year, according to BizofBaseball.com. Hello to a balanced pitching staff and Magglio Ordonez. The Athletics got $19- million. Hello to Frank Thomas and other sundry parts. Even the lowly Florida Marlins, with their anemic $14.5-million payroll (which is less than 15 guys? individual salaries in 2006, including the postseason pathetic Alex Rodriguez who was paid a full ten-million more), stayed in contention through mid-September.
This level playing field has also resulted in something else. MLB enjoyed record attendance, they signed lucrative broadcasting deals with ESPN, Fox and XM Satellite radio. More people are watching baseball both in person and on broadcast resulting in even more money being shared ? leveling the playing field yet even further.
All is good in baseball it seems, so good that I bet not very many people are even aware that the players and the league are currently in contract negotiations. They still have to hammer out some of the finer points before the deal expires on December 19th. However, compared to the last number of bargaining sessions, where every meeting was front-page news, this peace is nothing short of remarkable.
?and it?s all due to Bud Selig. I never saw that coming. Guess I really am oh-for-five.
The Detroit Tigers vs. the Oakland A's
Or, can anyone take Ken Macha over Jim Leyland? Not I.
Tigers in 5.
The New York Mets vs. the St. Louis Cardinals
The Mets were supposed to lose in the Division Series because they hadn?t played a meaningful game since May, and they were banged up. Didn?t matter. They swept the Dodgers. I think they?ll almost do it again.
Mets in 5.
Cheers - Gavin McDougald - AKA Couch
Get your MLB playoff wagers in now!
October 11th, 2006 - Oh-fer get it
If you are here looking for some guaranteed 100% picks for the remainder of Major League Baseball playoffs, I have some vital information that you simply have to have:
You?ve come to the wrong place.
I went oh-fer in the Division Series. As in zero for four.
But wait; before you go scrambling a Google Search looking up ?guaranteed 100% picks,? I have an excuse. I?m old school. I, like many of you I suspect (or hope), thought money equated success ? and the tried tested and theoretically true formula that in baseball you can buy a championship still held true.
Not anymore apparently.
It was only three years ago that the Detroit Tigers lost 119 games. This year, with 13 teams above them in annual team salaries, they took out the $199-million Yankees, and hardly broke a sweat doing it.
Now they are taking on Oakland (and taking it to them if game one was any indication) in the ALCS. The A?s rank 21st out of MLB's 30 teams with a $62 million payroll.
Sitting at home watching, and trying to figure out what went wrong are those damned Yankees, along with the Red Sox and their $120-million payout. As well as the Angels ($104-million), as well as the White Sox ($103-million), as well as?
We, (or at least I), have been conditioned to believe that World Series appearances and therefore championships are strictly reserved for the big spenders. Sure, there were the rare aberrations like the long-shot Anaheim Angels in 2002 and the Florida Marlins in 2003, but more often than not, at least back into the end of the last century anyway, the rich ruled.
So ? how come? How can teams that outspend other teams two, or in the Yankees case, three to one and lose? I mean, how can that add up? As much as it pains me to admit, it?s because of baseball Commissioner Bud ?Not so Lite anymore? Selig and his often criticized revenue-sharing.
The first year it was introduced it had little or no impact because all-told, the luxury tax equated to about $48-million dollars. Spread out through the smaller revenue teams, that money was equivalent to the salary of a second string outfielder.
This year however the pot was much more substantial - to the tune of $323-million! Now we?re talking star player money, or enough to sign a number of utility players to give almost-there teams the push they needed to put them over the top.
The Tigers got $25 million in revenue sharing at the end of last year, according to BizofBaseball.com. Hello to a balanced pitching staff and Magglio Ordonez. The Athletics got $19- million. Hello to Frank Thomas and other sundry parts. Even the lowly Florida Marlins, with their anemic $14.5-million payroll (which is less than 15 guys? individual salaries in 2006, including the postseason pathetic Alex Rodriguez who was paid a full ten-million more), stayed in contention through mid-September.
This level playing field has also resulted in something else. MLB enjoyed record attendance, they signed lucrative broadcasting deals with ESPN, Fox and XM Satellite radio. More people are watching baseball both in person and on broadcast resulting in even more money being shared ? leveling the playing field yet even further.
All is good in baseball it seems, so good that I bet not very many people are even aware that the players and the league are currently in contract negotiations. They still have to hammer out some of the finer points before the deal expires on December 19th. However, compared to the last number of bargaining sessions, where every meeting was front-page news, this peace is nothing short of remarkable.
?and it?s all due to Bud Selig. I never saw that coming. Guess I really am oh-for-five.
The Detroit Tigers vs. the Oakland A's
Or, can anyone take Ken Macha over Jim Leyland? Not I.
Tigers in 5.
The New York Mets vs. the St. Louis Cardinals
The Mets were supposed to lose in the Division Series because they hadn?t played a meaningful game since May, and they were banged up. Didn?t matter. They swept the Dodgers. I think they?ll almost do it again.
Mets in 5.
Cheers - Gavin McDougald - AKA Couch
Get your MLB playoff wagers in now!
