Thread Rating:
11-13-2007, 12:22 PM
Beef Wrote:I have nothing to be jealous about. I have the Reds and Bengals to cheer for!!
But maybe I should be more clear about what I meant. I know that these players have grown up in the Red Sox system, or at least that is where most of them prospered. The reason they are so good is because they have good/smart coaches to go along with these very talented players. When I brought up the money issue, it was more of the fact that they are in such a big market that they have the ability to keep these "Home Grown" players because they have the money to dish out to them. It's hard for small market teams to keep top notch players because they don't have the cash. So, yes, they do win with money, at least on some part.
I mean the Sox do have the second highest payroll (behind the Yankees) at $143+ Million and this past season paid 5 players (Ramirez, Drew, Ortiz, Schilling, and Varitek) over $10,000,000 each. These 5 combined make more than the total payroll for each of the bottom 8 teams (All small market). But then again, in today's world, it is required that you use money to win.
The Patriots are also ranked second in NFL Salaries (behind the Panthers by a little over $600,000) paying their players $123+ Million. Their top to players receive $24+ Million and $16+ Million.
Celtics are at a low ranking of 4th, paying their players $74+ Million, including the highest paid player in the NBA in Garnett ($23,750,000) and 2 others that receive $16+ Million.
I'm sure these players want to play for these teams, but it does take money to keep them playing in New England.
It does take money to keep them there, I agree with that. But just like you said, the Red Sox are growing their own players and keeping them.
If the Reds had better scouts/farm system, they could keep their players (or at least the better ones like Adam Dunn in recent years who they signed to an extension) and have a winning ball club. Instead, they've drafted game changing players like Chad Motorola with their top picks before 4 years ago when O'Brien came in to make changes.
Messages In This Thread
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by BFritz - 11-09-2007, 03:47 PM
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by DevilsWin - 11-09-2007, 04:13 PM
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by Hornet Nation - 11-09-2007, 04:41 PM
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by Advance Eagles - 11-09-2007, 05:12 PM
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by Bengal Cat - 11-09-2007, 06:34 PM
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by Crossbones - 11-09-2007, 08:39 PM
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by vundy33 - 11-09-2007, 09:20 PM
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by Redneck - 11-10-2007, 12:23 AM
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by Beef - 11-10-2007, 07:51 AM
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by Redneck - 11-10-2007, 11:11 AM
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by jammin' jamey - 11-10-2007, 02:09 PM
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by -STAT- - 11-10-2007, 07:08 PM
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by Beef - 11-11-2007, 01:58 AM
Why is the New England Area so Dominant? - by jammin' jamey - 11-13-2007, 12:22 PM
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)