Is it "all about winning"?

[MetroStyles]

Would you rather that your favorite sports team win at all costs, or that it keep it's core players despite perhaps not giving them their best chance to win (i.e. for sentimental reasons)? This is more of an issue in baseball and maybe basketball than in the NFL where good players tend to move around less and stay put.

Example: The NY Mets have home-grown players in David Wright and Jose Reyes. Many detractors say that they should trade these guys for some blue chip prospects.

From a pure baseball perspective, it might make sense (I don't hold an opinion on that, it depends on what they get back). But from a fan perspective, I am appalled at the notion. What is the point of cheering on a team if you are only cheering on the jersey/the owner? To me sports are about players and memories, and I don't want a team that is made up of random mercenaries that shuffle around every year just to win. Hell, even the Yankees have Jeter/Rivera/Pettitte, and the better Yankees of the 90s/00s had a bunch of other home-grown players.

I am surprised when I hear fans clamoring for homegrown talent to be traded away in the hopes of potentially becoming incrementally better in the wins column. I mean, I get the logic, but sports isn't about logic. There is no logical reason to watch sports. It is an emotional past time - you get attached to your team and you root for it to win for no apparent reason at all except your emotional ties to the team.

For that reason, I'd rather lose a few more games and keep the core players at home (as long as they are performing relatively well) than to trade them away. I kind of dig the old days when players spent entire careers with one team. Way more fun to watch and root for.

Again, I think this applies most to baseball, less to basketball, and least to football (where it just is not as relevant).

 

[ter1413]

Wow....you did some soul searching this wkend???

 

[globetrotter]

I don't give a **** - I like a good game, at a reasonable price for good seats, with high quality beer and food available in the stands. pretty much everythign else after that I just don't give a ****. oh, I wouldn't mind if I could sit in the first few rows and not be in the sun, too, but that might be too much to ask for.

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

I don't give a **** - I like a good game, at a reasonable price for good seats, with high quality beer and food available in the stands. pretty much everythign else after that I just don't give a ****. oh, I wouldn't mind if I could sit in the first few rows and not be in the sun, too, but that might be too much to ask for.

I'm talking about hardcore fans, not the casual fan here. Obviously the casual fan doesn't care for much except a fun experience at the ballpark.

Although why any casual fan would watch the mind-deadening game of baseball is beyond me. I can't bear it unless my team is playing, in which case I am engrossed by it.

 

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

I'm talking about hardcore fans, not the casual fan here. Obviously the casual fan doesn't care for much except a fun experience at the ballpark.

Although why any casual fan would watch the mind-deadening game of baseball is beyond me. I can't bear it unless my team is playing, in which case I am engrossed by it.

I enjoy maybe 4-6 baseball games a year. not more than that. and I don't care who is playing, but I like to have good seats.

 

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

I'm talking about hardcore fans, not the casual fan here. Obviously the casual fan doesn't care for much except a fun experience at the ballpark.

Although why any casual fan would watch the mind-deadening game of baseball is beyond me. I can't bear it unless my team is playing, in which case I am engrossed by it.

Man, every time I start paying attention to MLB, the F***ers go on strike. After the last one (or threat of a strike), I quit caring.

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

I enjoy maybe 4-6 baseball games a year. not more than that. and I don't care who is playing, but I like to have good seats.

More power to you...I can't watch baseball unless its the Mets. And how they've played recently, I can't watch baseball even when it is the Mets.

 

[Thomas]

Hmmm, about basketball, I really liked the Rockets teams of the 90's - particularly when Drexler came home to win a ring with Olajuwon. I preferred that the core team stuck together, but when they traded away Cassell and Horry to chase a ring with Barkley and Pippen, the wheels came completely off for all the hardcore fans. I hated seeing those two carpetbaggers come to town, particularly since Barkley's addition was pure ring-seeking (and I like Barkley, too). So to answer your question: keep the core team together.

 

[Hombre Secreto]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

More power to you...I can't watch baseball unless its the Mets. And how they've played recently, I can't watch baseball even when it is the Mets.

So how did you feel about Dodger farm raised Piazza?

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto

So how did you feel about Dodger farm raised Piazza?

I was super happy to get him. I have no issue with bringing in superstars if it is not at the expense of great homegrown players. The Mets had absolute garbage for years at catcher, so no loss there.

I feel bad for Dodger fans though. That must have sucked.

 

[Bhowie]

When you say win at all costs what exactly does this mean? I'm sure you don't mean that if a player could murder another person to get ahead or pull in a W. Do I think players should take roids and put their health on the line if they want to improve, **** yes. I only care about wins.

 

[sunror]

watching baseball at the stadium is a three hour conversation, totally different than football and usually different than basketball and hockey

i like home grown players but not at the cost of winning. loved ewing but would have traded him for jordan in a second. i really wanted reggie miller when he hit free agency but we signed houston

and what does home grown even mean in baseball? if you're rebuilding, trading away home grown stars, you're getting prospects in return. are the prospects home grown, or does a player have to be drafted by the organization?

 

[Dakota rube]

Minnesota Twins. Home-grown talent + winning ball club. (Although they haven't won the World Series in 19 years.)

 

[BDC2823]

It all depends on the team and where they are at and how the future looks. As a Buccaneers/Dodgers/Lakers fan each team is different. The Lakers are obviously in contention and with the core they have, should do whatever they need to do to win now. The Bucs (even though they are 2-0) are most likely not going to be a contender this year and should focus on cultivating young talent so that they can compete in a couple years. As a fan, I look for guys like Freeman, Williams, McCoy, etc. to continually improve each week and winning now isn't really what I care about with that team.

The Dodgers are a different story. A team in limbo. This year is gone, but with a few pieces I think they can contend next year. First things first though, they need a new owner asap and are going nowhere until that's done. If that happens, I think they can hit the free agent market this winter and add some pieces that will put them as contenders. That said, they aren't really upper echelon as far as teams are concerned, so I wouldn't sell the farm to try to compete and would make sure that attention is paid to prospects. I'd keep the core of the team intact (Ethier, Kemp, etc.) and would try to add to the team to help them win now (next year), but wouldn't deal away top notch prospects to acquire players via trade as they are not a bonafide contender.

For instance, I would have done the same thing in trading away Dotel and other players that can help a contender and bring in prospects while not hurting the core of the team for the next few years. I'd go after Carl Crawford and some starting pitching in free agency, but wouldn't deal away prospects for a Cliff Lee type. Evaluate the team next year as the trade dealine approaches and if in serious contention go after the missing pieces. If not, deal away the Dotel types and guys approaching free agency for prospects for the following year.

Of course, nothing will get done at all without the McCourts selling the team.

 

[MetroStyles]

^^^ BDC, yeah but you are looking from a pure "what is the best way to win" perspective, which in some cases requires holding on to the farm.

I'm saying if I could guarantee the Mets would win the WS in 2 years by trading away Reyes, Wright, Pelfrey, and Ike Davis, I would not take it. Yeah, I'm serious.

I guess I just don't see the point of a team "winning it" if it's just a hodgepodge group of bros. I want "my guys" to win it. That means something to me, the other doesn't really. Like I said, sports are only interesting because we are emotionally invested. I am more invested in the players than the name on the uniform. By adding players gradually, you can maintain the core and the team identity while still improving the team. If you do wholesale changes and uproot the soul of the team completely, that is a turnoff to me as a fan.

But we are all different, which is why I ask.

Hypothetical: Would a Knicks fan support the Knicks if in 1995 they traded all 12 players for the Bulls 12? Yeah, they would be better. But is it really the Knicks? By looking at extremes like this, you can figure out how much you really care about the name on the uniform vs. the team character.