Poor Dodgers :(

[OutlawImmortal]

Ever heard of LeBron James?

I thought the Suns were a good team, they're going to be the first team to start 5 guards.

 

[Clayton]

Cardinals were the favorites at the beginning of the year. They just had a lot of negative things happen in the regular season and bounced back a little bit in the DS.

 

[The Derski]

I thought the Suns were a good team, they're going to be the first team to start 5 guards.

You really need to work on your trash talk.

 

[CatsTopPac]

All that money thrown around and still no ring in how many years now?

Baseball Gods prevail. Couldn't have happened to a bigger bunch of classless asswipes!

C'mon Sting, we've already gone over the breakdown that payroll is not even a significant indicator of expectations. Besides, LA won back to back division titles, and at least put themselves in a position to play for a ring. Looks like LA is headed in the direction of competing for a ring for years to come. As these players get these experiences and grow together, they will be that much more competitive. Given the fact that the Dodgers were the only team in the top 5 of payroll that won a playoff game (and the only one in the top 4 to even make the playoffs) this year proves that payroll is not a significant factor.

You do realize that the Giants and the Cardinals are the only two teams in the top half of payroll that are still playing, right? And the Royals and Orioles are representing the bottom half. It takes so much more than just throwing money at something to make it succeed.

Are you telling me that if Kendrick came into billions and wanted to up the DBack payroll to the top that you would be against the spending? Would you have automatic expectations of the DBacks winning every year or they're a bust? C'mon man, you know it takes so much more than that to be successful.

Look at the Giants and the Cards. They have a core group of players and coaches that have been together for years. They had to build to where they are. They don't just automatically get there because of payroll. It's one factor. But having those players around, developing chemistry, gaining experiences and proving to be consistent, are all far more significant that payroll. The Dodgers are putting all of that together. Considering that the Dodgers back to back West champs and not just limping in every once in a while means that they are putting it together. It takes time to achieve these things on a consistent basis.

 

[Robotech]

I think that having the biggest payroll in the game, with a very wide margin over your division foes, significantly raises your odds of making the postseason. Therefore, it has to be a significant factor, IMO.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I think that having the biggest payroll in the game, with a very wide margin over your division foes, significantly raises your odds of making the postseason. Therefore, it has to be a significant factor, IMO.

I think it helps, but not as much as the other factors I listed above. But yes though, it helps to make the postseason. I don't think anyone argues that it has absolutely has nothing to do with it. That being said, as I stated above, the Dodgers are the only team in the top 4 of payroll to make the playoffs. So what does that say about the Yanks, Red Sox, and Phillies?

 

[Fountain City Blues]

I think it helps, but not as much as the other factors I listed above. But yes though, it helps to make the postseason. I don't think anyone argues that it has absolutely has nothing to do with it. That being said, as I stated above, the Dodgers are the only team in the top 4 of payroll to make the playoffs. So what does that say about the Yanks, Red Sox, and Phillies?

Brutally inefficient- this year anyway. The Phillies FO is flat out incompetent though- see Amaro.

 

[OutlawImmortal]

You really need to work on your trash talk.

There's no trash talk necessary, Dbacks got eliminated in April.

Just reminding you that the Suns suck too, and so does your state.

 

[Robotech]

I think it helps, but not as much as the other factors I listed above. But yes though, it helps to make the postseason. I don't think anyone argues that it has absolutely has nothing to do with it. That being said, as I stated above, the Dodgers are the only team in the top 4 of payroll to make the playoffs. So what does that say about the Yanks, Red Sox, and Phillies?

Having a $235 million payroll is rather significant. It helps a lot. It allows them to keep their best players (e.g., Kershaw), to get the best players available in free agency (e.g., Greinke), and to trade for players that other teams can't afford to take on (e.g., Gonzalez, HanRam). I don't expect the Dodgers to ever miss the postseason, unless they get hit with significant injuries.

The other factors you mentioned are important, but that doesn't mean a $235 million payroll is not significant. I'm not really sure why the Dodgers didn't have the chemistry this year, but I don't think it had to do with the number of years these guys were together. Many of the core have been there for a while and Mattingly was a coach on Torre's staff before he became manager. It seems that some players' egos got in the way, or maybe Mattingly just didn't manage the whole situation very well.

The Red Sox are hard to figure out. They went from worst to first back to worst in the course of three seasons. Supposedly, they are trying to be more budget-conscious and they want to put themselves in position to sign guys like Giancarlo Stanton, so they were happy to trade away their more expensive players.

I think that Yankees and Phillies are older teams who have high-priced players (like Soriano, Texeira, Jeter, Beltran, Howard, Lee) who aren't really worth what they are being paid. Also, Sabathia got injured, and he's no longer worth his contract either.

 

[msgkings322]

Having a $235 million payroll is rather significant. It helps a lot. It allows them to keep their best players (e.g., Kershaw), to get the best players available in free agency (e.g., Greinke), and to trade for players that other teams can't afford to take on (e.g., Gonzalez, HanRam). I don't expect the Dodgers to ever miss the postseason, unless they get hit with significant injuries.

The other factors you mentioned are important, but that doesn't mean a $235 million payroll is not significant. I'm not really sure why the Dodgers didn't have the chemistry this year, but I don't think it had to do with the number of years these guys were together. Many of the core have been there for a while and Mattingly was a coach on Torre's staff before he became manager. It seems that some players' egos got in the way, or maybe Mattingly just didn't manage the whole situation very well.

The Red Sox are hard to figure out. They went from worst to first back to worst in the course of three seasons. Supposedly, they are trying to be more budget-conscious and they want to put themselves in position to sign guys like Giancarlo Stanton, so they were happy to trade away their more expensive players.

I think that Yankees and Phillies are older teams who have high-priced players (like Soriano, Texeira, Jeter, Beltran, Howard, Lee) who aren't really worth what they are being paid. Also, Sabathia got injured, and he's no longer worth his contract either.

Overthinking it. The playoffs are a short sample size crapshoot and losing or winning them doesn't 'mean' anything. We create narratives after the fact but in the case of MLB playoffs we're just talking about almost random outcomes. If Scott Rolen doesn't botch that grounder in game 3 in Cincinnati in 2012, the Giants get swept out of the playoffs that year and they go from budding dynasty to one ring. Are the 2012 Reds 'losers' or 'winners'? If the As beat KC in that epic WC game, are we still saying Beane screwed it up?

 

[calsnowskier]

Overthinking it. The playoffs are a short sample size crapshoot and losing or winning them doesn't 'mean' anything. We create narratives after the fact but in the case of MLB playoffs we're just talking about almost random outcomes. If Scott Rolen doesn't botch that grounder in game 3 in Cincinnati in 2012, the Giants get swept out of the playoffs that year and they go from budding dynasty to one ring. Are the 2012 Reds 'losers' or 'winners'? If the As beat KC in that epic WC game, are we still saying Beane screwed it up?

Or Brooks Conrad in 2010. Does anyone believe the Giants would have gotten out of that series without Conrad's assistance? That killed them (not to mention more than a couple really bad umpire calls that series).

 

[CatsTopPac]

I just think that when you put the Dodgers and their players up against the Cards and Matheny (who has been in a Cards uniform under La Russa, and took over his system) with Yadi, Waino, Holiday, and Jay; mostly serving the top positions and leaders on the team) and compare that with Eithier, Kemp, Kershaw, Ellis, and GOrdon, it's not the same. Those guys were all babies 5 years ago.

As far as the Giants go, Bochy with Lincecum, Cain, Bum, Romo, Posey, and Sandoval, it's not even close. Those guys have all been together and studs for a while.

Again, if the top five reflected the teams that were in the WS and winning every year, then I would buy your argument. But when the top half or third doesn't look much different than the bottom half or mid third, then it doesn't overwhelmingly correlate. It certainly helps, no one is saying it doesn't. But only SF and LA have won a playoff game in the top 9 of payroll. You can't just chalk it all up to payroll, when both ALCS teams are in the bottom half of payroll. Again, it matters. Looking at the bottom third of payroll and they suck. Look at the top third and they are good. It should guarentee a playoff spot. But if payroll guaranteed a playoff spot, then NY, Bos, Phi, are so much more of a disappointment.

The reason why it's not the biggest factor is because teams like SF and StL have a very good coach, a group that has played seasons together, and have won WS together. That makes them a mainstay in October. THe Dodgers don't have that. And, they are competing against that. 3 years ago, Dee was garbage, Puig was in Cuba, Ryu was in Korea, Hanley, Gonzo, Crawford, and Greinke weren't in LA, Uribe just got to LA, and the same could be said for the rest of the rotation and bullpen. Really, only Kemp, Ethier (who is not contributing anymore), and Kershaw were the only ones who are studs back then who are studs now. Yes, there is a great deal of developing young players (at 26 I throw Kershaw in there), bringing in a bunch of new starts (yes, egos are involved, but just managing roles is a challenge for a coach with new players), and bringing all of that into the players who were here. Young guys need to cut there teeth, and new stars need to gel. I think that LA has chemistry. We won 187 games in the past two years. But I don't think we have near the playoff experience as StL and SF. It showed when you look at Puig and Gordon, and even Kershaw.

 

[Clayton]

I dont know how much of it is actually experience. Everything matters. The playoffs are often 'how strong is your weakest link' and not 'how good is your greatest strength'. The Dodgers starters struggled around the 7th inning and their bullpen was godawful. The Dodgers payroll allowed them 2 or 3 extra weapons but none of them mattered next to 'their bullpen was godawful'

 

[Robotech]

Overthinking it. The playoffs are a short sample size crapshoot and losing or winning them doesn't 'mean' anything. We create narratives after the fact but in the case of MLB playoffs we're just talking about almost random outcomes. If Scott Rolen doesn't botch that grounder in game 3 in Cincinnati in 2012, the Giants get swept out of the playoffs that year and they go from budding dynasty to one ring. Are the 2012 Reds 'losers' or 'winners'? If the As beat KC in that epic WC game, are we still saying Beane screwed it up?

I wasn't over-analyzing or overthinking about the Dodgers; I was referring to what Mattingly said towards the end of the season. He basically said that this team didn't have good chemistry. He compared them to the '72 A's. He also made a statement in June about the Dodgers' lack of cohesion. I don't know if chemistry played a factor at all in their postseason exit. For the sake of this discussion, I am accepting the Dodger fan's position that Dodgers need to improve in this department.

 

[RobToxin]

 

[Robotech]

I just think that when you put the Dodgers and their players up against the Cards and Matheny (who has been in a Cards uniform under La Russa, and took over his system) with Yadi, Waino, Holiday, and Jay; mostly serving the top positions and leaders on the team) and compare that with Eithier, Kemp, Kershaw, Ellis, and GOrdon, it's not the same. Those guys were all babies 5 years ago.

As far as the Giants go, Bochy with Lincecum, Cain, Bum, Romo, Posey, and Sandoval, it's not even close. Those guys have all been together and studs for a while.

Again, if the top five reflected the teams that were in the WS and winning every year, then I would buy your argument. But when the top half or third doesn't look much different than the bottom half or mid third, then it doesn't overwhelmingly correlate. It certainly helps, no one is saying it doesn't. But only SF and LA have won a playoff game in the top 9 of payroll. You can't just chalk it all up to payroll, when both ALCS teams are in the bottom half of payroll. Again, it matters. Looking at the bottom third of payroll and they suck. Look at the top third and they are good. It should guarentee a playoff spot. But if payroll guaranteed a playoff spot, then NY, Bos, Phi, are so much more of a disappointment.

The reason why it's not the biggest factor is because teams like SF and StL have a very good coach, a group that has played seasons together, and have won WS together. That makes them a mainstay in October. THe Dodgers don't have that. And, they are competing against that. 3 years ago, Dee was garbage, Puig was in Cuba, Ryu was in Korea, Hanley, Gonzo, Crawford, and Greinke weren't in LA, Uribe just got to LA, and the same could be said for the rest of the rotation and bullpen. Really, only Kemp, Ethier (who is not contributing anymore), and Kershaw were the only ones who are studs back then who are studs now. Yes, there is a great deal of developing young players (at 26 I throw Kershaw in there), bringing in a bunch of new starts (yes, egos are involved, but just managing roles is a challenge for a coach with new players), and bringing all of that into the players who were here. Young guys need to cut there teeth, and new stars need to gel. I think that LA has chemistry. We won 187 games in the past two years. But I don't think we have near the playoff experience as StL and SF. It showed when you look at Puig and Gordon, and even Kershaw.

My only disagreement with you is with your statement that player payroll is not a significant factor. I think it is. I agree with you that the other factors are important. Just think about it. If the amount you spend on player payroll does not help you significantly, then why are the Dodgers spending so much on something that is not significant?

 

[CatsTopPac]

I mean, if we are really trying to rank disappointing seasons this year, then top of the list in reverse order are the teams that didn't make the playoffs regardless of payroll. Is the Dodgers' season more disappointing than AZ, Houston, Texas, etc.? No. The fact that teams like the Yanks, BoSox, and Phillies didn't make the playoffs with such high payrolls probably puts them at the top of disappointment because they were supposed to buy their way in, right? Then I would put teams like The Angels, who had the best record in baseball a top payroll, and then got swept. Same with Detroit. I would be so much more disappointed in my team if I were a fan of Detroit or Anaheim. Then I'd put Pittsburgh because they had a short stay. Same with Oakland. Hell, Oakland took a sharp dive. Then I would put the Dodgers. But shit, at that point, we are talking about one of the 5-6 least disappointing seasons. I'm not pissed at all. Let's give it another go next year. I like our chances.

 

[msgkings322]

I wasn't over-analyzing or overthinking about the Dodgers; I was referring to what Mattingly said towards the end of the season. He basically said that this team didn't have good chemistry. He compared them to the '72 A's. He also made a statement in June about the Dodgers' lack of cohesion. I don't know if chemistry played a factor at all in their postseason exit. For the sake of this discussion, I am accepting the Dodger fan's position that Dodgers need to improve in this department.

Sure, and I actually do think chemistry matters somewhat (although the '72 A's proved otherwise). My point was we can all point to 'reasons' why the Dodgers 'failed' in the playoffs but much of it was random short sample size stuff. Yes their pen did poorly, but only in a game or two. Over a longer sample they would probably do just fine. But by then it's too late.

All the playoff teams are 'good' teams, they prove that over 162 games. Then the winner of the 10 is rarely the 'best' of them. Just the luckiest that year.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I dont know how much of it is actually experience. Everything matters. The playoffs are often 'how strong is your weakest link' and not 'how good is your greatest strength'. The Dodgers starters struggled around the 7th inning and their bullpen was godawful. The Dodgers payroll allowed them 2 or 3 extra weapons but none of them mattered next to 'their bullpen was godawful'

It is everything. The bullpen wasn't just aweful in October, they have been awful for the last two years. I blame Honeycutt for that. But that being said, the majority of our bullpen except for Wilson and Jansen have very little playoff experience, let alone time in a Dodger uniform.

Overall, I agree with you. My whole point though is that people are just hanging all of this on Dodger payroll meaning that they should win the ring automatically, and I think it's very clear that "everything matters" not just payroll.

 

[Clayton]

I mean, if we are really trying to rank disappointing seasons this year, then top of the list in reverse order are the teams that didn't make the playoffs regardless of payroll. Is the Dodgers' season more disappointing than AZ, Houston, Texas, etc.? No. The fact that teams like the Yanks, BoSox, and Phillies didn't make the playoffs with such high payrolls probably puts them at the top of disappointment because they were supposed to buy their way in, right? Then I would put teams like The Angels, who had the best record in baseball a top payroll, and then got swept. Same with Detroit. I would be so much more disappointed in my team if I were a fan of Detroit or Anaheim. Then I'd put Pittsburgh because they had a short stay. Same with Oakland. Hell, Oakland took a sharp dive. Then I would put the Dodgers. But shit, at that point, we are talking about one of the 5-6 least disappointing seasons. I'm not pissed at all. Let's give it another go next year. I like our chances.

The fanbases that feel the worst right now I'm guessing: 1)Angels 2)Tigers 3)Dodgers 4)Nationals 5)A's.

The A's should be higher but the Tigers and Angels were terrible and really shouldn't have been. Both might be near the end of their windows, too. Pujols looked bad and Hamilton was worse. The Angels might not make it back to the playoffs with this nucleus.

I think Vegas had the Dodgers with the highest odds to win the WS once the playoffs started. They also had the NL MVP, 2 Aces and a top...3? offense with hitters clicking at the right time. The Nationals have to feel like they are cursed but their window is wider than everyone else's.