Originally Posted by westofyou
The early Cubs and White sox and then Yankees and Giants and later the Dodgers are proof that that statment isn't a whole truth. Shoot, look at the little success of the small market Browns and the small market Senators over the years. The Phillies were 2nd tier in their own city thus making them "small market" and they stunk for most of their existence.
Big city towns having been buying it since Kelly went from the White Stockings to the Beaneaters for 10K. The only way you beat the big market is with innovation, thus Branch Rickey, thuse Bob Howsam, thus Sandy Alderson, thus Billy Beane.
I agree woy that the "big city towns have been buying it", and have always had an advantage over the smaller market teams; but my point is that there wasn't the huge disparity then as we have seen come into existence currently. The "gap" (or gulf) has grown even wider and wider.
And just because one is deemed a large market team, that does not equate into success (historically speaking) (i.e. the Cubs and Red Sox come to mind).
Acknowledging that one is a small market team does not mean that they are doomed to always be mediocre or not have success. And I didn't get to hear O'Brien's recent remarks; but from what a couple people have told me who did, they intepreted O'Brien to be saying, due to the small market label, to not expect much from the Reds. Now if O'Brien truly said this, then that disappoints me alot. Because that type of approach or mentality will get you nowhere then.