Jump to content

IdahoBert

2019-2020 OFFSEASON DISCUSSION THREAD

Recommended Posts

I knew that they had been consistent, but I didn't realize until just now that the Cardinals have only had one losing season this century -- 2007, the year after they won the WS.  They've also enjoyed almost perfectly steady home attendance for the last 20 years.

Only 9 losing seasons in the last 40 years.  3 and 3 in the WS. 

Only 12 losing seasons in the previous 54 years; 8 and 4 in the WS.

To have 70+ winning seasons and 11 WS wins and 18 WS appearances in 90+ years?  And they never seemed to be a bad team either.  That is just crazy.

Gads!  Must be pretty nice to be a Cardinals fan.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, sabretooth said:

I knew that they had been consistent, but I didn't realize until just now that the Cardinals have only had one losing season this century -- 2007, the year after they won the WS.  They've also enjoyed almost perfectly steady home attendance for the last 20 years.

Only 9 losing seasons in the last 40 years.  3 and 3 in the WS. 

Only 12 losing seasons in the previous 54 years; 8 and 4 in the WS.

To have 70+ winning seasons and 11 WS wins and 18 WS appearances in 90+ years?  And they never seemed to be a bad team either.  That is just crazy.

Gads!  Must be pretty nice to be a Cardinals fan.

Like you, I knew they were consistent...but these numbers are incredible!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

I loved hearing the Expos PA announcer call out his name.  

I loved those announcements.  John...BO ca BELLLL a

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sabretooth said:

I knew that they had been consistent, but I didn't realize until just now that the Cardinals have only had one losing season this century -- 2007, the year after they won the WS.  They've also enjoyed almost perfectly steady home attendance for the last 20 years.

Only 9 losing seasons in the last 40 years.  3 and 3 in the WS. 

Only 12 losing seasons in the previous 54 years; 8 and 4 in the WS.

To have 70+ winning seasons and 11 WS wins and 18 WS appearances in 90+ years?  And they never seemed to be a bad team either.  That is just crazy.

Gads!  Must be pretty nice to be a Cardinals fan.

Kinda like being a Bay Area sports fan the past decade. First you had the Giants win a few championships, then the Warriors win a bunch now the year the Warriors suck the 49ers make the Super Bowl.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Kinda like being a Bay Area sports fan the past decade. First you had the Giants win a few championships, then the Warriors win a bunch now the year the Warriors suck the 49ers make the Super Bowl.   

Golden Seals? Not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2020 at 8:43 PM, bobrob2004 said:

I agree.  With Twitter now, there's really no such thing as "exclusive" news.  So someone knew about it 10 minutes before I did.  So what?

I never understood the Athletics's reasoning for being subscription based.  Did they really think that people hate ads that much that they were willing to spend money not to see them?  And to read news that everyone else was going to get within a day or two?  It was a model that I thought never was going to work.  

We are just used to getting something for free that we all used to expect to have to pay for. 

Real journalists deserve to be paid. Not just people with opinions. People who actually went to the trouble of getting a degree in journalism, who know about who what when where how, and their ethical responsibilities as journalists. I don’t have any problems with pay walls. How this works at the Ground Zero of practicality is of course a different matter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sabretooth said:

I knew that they had been consistent, but I didn't realize until just now that the Cardinals have only had one losing season this century -- 2007, the year after they won the WS.  They've also enjoyed almost perfectly steady home attendance for the last 20 years.

Only 9 losing seasons in the last 40 years.  3 and 3 in the WS. 

Only 12 losing seasons in the previous 54 years; 8 and 4 in the WS.

To have 70+ winning seasons and 11 WS wins and 18 WS appearances in 90+ years?  And they never seemed to be a bad team either.  That is just crazy.

Gads!  Must be pretty nice to be a Cardinals fan.

That's the dream, isn't it?  Year in and year out, fielding a competitive team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers are slightly off, but I heard this about Jeter's career home runs.  29% went to LF (I know I heard that this was under 30%).  36% went to CF.  35% went to RF.  That seems incredible given the popular theory that most HRs are pulled (admittedly, I have no idea what the true percentage of pulled home runs is).  Sure, the RF porch in Yankee stadium was short.  But the ability to tailor a swing to (1) hit all over the field and (2) take advantage of that short porch is pretty darned good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IdahoBert said:

We are just used to getting something for free that we all used to expect to have to pay for. 

Real journalists deserve to be paid. Not just people with opinions. People who actually went to the trouble of getting a degree in journalism, who know about who what when where how, and their ethical responsibilities as journalists. I don’t have any problems with pay walls. How this works at the Ground Zero of practicality is of course a different matter.

I never said journalist shouldn't get paid. Just do what other sites do and use ads. Then pay the journalists with the ad revenue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am willing to pay for a subscription rather than see a bunch of pop up ads, but it needs to be something focused on one of my specific interests and it needs to be really good.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ad revenue is not enough to fund "journalists".  It could maybe fund analysts who can work from home or very limited travel.  But sending people out on west coast trips to write baseball recaps and get a few canned quotes in the locker room is not sustainable.  The annoying ads, the videos, unfortunately pay better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than 2/3 of digital ad spend is on Google, Facebook and Amazon, which leaves little to go around for every other digital platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

I never said journalist shouldn't get paid. Just do what other sites do and use ads. Then pay the journalists with the ad revenue. 

I never thought you did. I just saw your post as an opportunity to get on the grandstand and to pontificate.

The Internet, for all its positive upside, has had a flattening affect on expertise. Anyone can get a forum to be heard whether they deserve to be heard or not. And since we’re used to accessing stuff easily on a screen everything on a screen should be free. I feel this way about all sorts of stuff. But somebody besides Jeff Bezos has to make enough money so baby has shoes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IdahoBert said:

I never thought you did. I just saw your post as an opportunity to get on the grandstand and to pontificate.

The Internet, for all its positive upside, has had a flattening affect on expertise. Anyone can get a forum to be heard whether they deserve to be heard or not. And since we’re used to accessing stuff easily on a screen everything on a screen should be free. I feel this way about all sorts of stuff. But somebody besides Jeff Bezos has to make enough money so baby has shoes. 

A big problem now is that the google/facebook, while diverting eyeballs from local and print journalism, do not pay nearly the cost of the news content they aggregate, most of which is still collected by local and/or print journalists. Eventually all the papers will be dead and then the web portals will either have to go without news feeds or  start paying the real cost directly. In the meantime, the old media where the employment still resides continues to be squeezed. I was hearing there was recently a new deal worked out between the parties which is supposed to recover more dollars for primary news generators, but the relative negotiating power is already so skewed that is unlikely they got enough to turn the decline around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

I am willing to pay for a subscription rather than see a bunch of pop up ads, but it needs to be something focused on one of my specific interests and it needs to be really good.  

Something like what FanGraphs does.  You can read everything for free with ads running or pay for a membership to remove the ads.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing Nick won't get his 4/60 anymore. I wonder whether Boras Corporation turned down any long term offers that might have fallen short of that? Nick might end up taking something like Ozuna's deal, for one year, and hope to throw up Cub-like numbers for next offseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oblong said:

ad revenue is not enough to fund "journalists".  It could maybe fund analysts who can work from home or very limited travel.  But sending people out on west coast trips to write baseball recaps and get a few canned quotes in the locker room is not sustainable.  The annoying ads, the videos, unfortunately pay better.

 

You are probably right.  The vast majority of people are annoyed by popups, but all they need is a small percentage of morons to buy the product.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Oblong said:

ad revenue is not enough to fund "journalists".  It could maybe fund analysts who can work from home or very limited travel.  But sending people out on west coast trips to write baseball recaps and get a few canned quotes in the locker room is not sustainable.  The annoying ads, the videos, unfortunately pay better.

 

There could be different "tiers."  A free membership that gives you access to limited articles, with a donation option.  A membership for early access that eventually becomes free (a week? Month? Year?).  A membership to remove ads.  A membership for exclusive content that can only be seen with a membership (think ESPN Insider).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

The Tigers have agreed to terms on a Minor League contract for the 2020 season with LHP Héctor Santiago, who will also receive an invite to Major League Spring Training.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These names.........ugh...............this is not a temporary thing, this is how Chris Illitch is going to run this thing forever.   PLEASE SELL THE TEAM !!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

A big problem now is that the google/facebook, while diverting eyeballs from local and print journalism, do not pay nearly the cost of the news content they aggregate, most of which is still collected by local and/or print journalists. Eventually all the papers will be dead and then the web portals will either have to go without news feeds or  start paying the real cost directly. In the meantime, the old media where the employment still resides continues to be squeezed. I was hearing there was recently a new deal worked out between the parties which is supposed to recover more dollars for primary news generators, but the relative negotiating power is already so skewed that is unlikely they got enough to turn the decline around.

That's kind of like the "telephone game " version of what's going on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, sabretooth said:

I knew that they had been consistent, but I didn't realize until just now that the Cardinals have only had one losing season this century -- 2007, the year after they won the WS.  They've also enjoyed almost perfectly steady home attendance for the last 20 years.

Only 9 losing seasons in the last 40 years.  3 and 3 in the WS. 

Only 12 losing seasons in the previous 54 years; 8 and 4 in the WS.

To have 70+ winning seasons and 11 WS wins and 18 WS appearances in 90+ years?  And they never seemed to be a bad team either.  That is just crazy.

Gads!  Must be pretty nice to be a Cardinals fan.

See you can also look at that and go boy all that winning and they only have three titles. **** the Marlins have 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chasfh said:

I'm guessing Nick won't get his 4/60 anymore. I wonder whether Boras Corporation turned down any long term offers that might have fallen short of that? Nick might end up taking something like Ozuna's deal, for one year, and hope to throw up Cub-like numbers for next offseason.

I can't imagine Boras would have advised against any long term deal, but I can't imagine a team offering 4 years, $20M total either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Keepleyland2 said:

See you can also look at that and go boy all that winning and they only have three titles. **** the Marlins have 2.

 The Cardinals have been way way more entertaining than the Marlins this century.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...