PDA

View Full Version : The "Haves"



redssince75
10-13-2012, 06:39 AM
Yankees over Baltimore......of course

Cardinals over Nationals......Nats have never been in the playoffs in their lives. Cards just keeping winning in the playoffs

Detroit over Oakland.....neither really a "have", but Detroit definitely moreso than Oakland, Oakland is the epitome of "small ball" and it's been awhile since they were good

And of course...Giants have been a "have" much more than the Reds in recent years. It's been awhile for us.

All 4 went 5 games, all 4 end up with the "haves" beating the "have nots". I'm not arguing any kind of conspiracy. It just......figures.

I won't watch any more, but I will be force-fed Cardinals news over here.

paulrichjr
10-13-2012, 04:06 PM
The difference is often simple. The Reds go after pitching they get an inexperienced guy who loses his cool in a crucial situation. Why? Less expensive to "control" him the first 6 years. The Cards have much more experienced people. The Giants have been there....experience....the Tigers...experience. The Yankees? Goes without saying.

Youth is awesome but experience during this time of year costs money and lots of it.

Wonderful Monds
10-14-2012, 04:51 PM
The difference is often simple. The Reds go after pitching they get an inexperienced guy who loses his cool in a crucial situation. Why? Less expensive to "control" him the first 6 years. The Cards have much more experienced people. The Giants have been there....experience....the Tigers...experience. The Yankees? Goes without saying.

Youth is awesome but experience during this time of year costs money and lots of it.

Also because he is one of the NLs best pitchers. Even I said Mat Latos needs to learn to keep his head cool when things go south. But getting him was the right move.

paulrichjr
10-14-2012, 06:28 PM
Also because he is one of the NLs best pitchers. Even I said Mat Latos needs to learn to keep his head cool when things go south. But getting him was the right move.

I don't disagree with the move nor what you said. The point is that the Reds go get someone they can control for 4 years and have to depend on him in a crucial situation that he hasn't been in before. The high payroll teams have more people on their roster with experience which costs more. That's the difference. Sure there are teams that get through and win it all without a lot of experience "payroll"... But it's tougher.