if they didn't have that big fire sale which they didn't need in 1997 after they won in the world series and the semi fire sale after they won the 2003 world seres.
2007-11-09 18:16:32 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
If the Marlins resigned all of their KEY players in the 1997 and 2003 championships and didnt trade 'em the Marlins would be fighting with the Phillies and the Mets for the division rather then fighting the Nats for the 'worst team in the league' title.
2007-11-09 23:54:31 · answer #1 · answered by #1 New York Yankees Fan 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is difficult to say. The team in 1997 was much different than the team in 2003. The 97 team was a blend of original players from their expansion and the acquisition of a few key parts, manly Gary Sheffield, who has proven over the years that he quickly wears out his welcome where ever he goes. The 03 team was young and brash, but over the last four years, Penny and Beckett were frequently injured and Pavano, well we all know his story, so I would believe the Marlins would have struggled no matter if they sold there parts or not.
The Marlins are exceptional in scouting and have become the new Expos. So I think we will continue to see the Marlins grooming their talent and selling them off at their highest worth, until they can pack the stadium on a regular basis and create a solid fan base that will support the team.
2007-11-09 20:02:04 · answer #2 · answered by bstone18 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1997 -- doubt it. Ten years is roughly two roster re-generations in the life of a franchise, plus there was different administration and ownership at the time. I strongly doubt any players from the '97 championship team would still be in Miami today.
2003 -- this team wasn't torn apart so brutally, as you note, and they kept most of the pitching (Willis, Pavano, Beckett, Penny). The big offensive losses were Pudge Rodriguez and Derrek Lee, but Cabrera moved up to full-time playing. The 2003 team wasn't a world-beater anyway, good but not great, and got hot in October to win it. It probably would have slipped a bit in 2004 anyway -- which was where it ended up, a winning but unimpressive team (hey, repeating is hard). Most of the 2003 team dismantling came after 2004, so it probably would have progressed that way regardless.
2007-11-09 23:06:45 · answer #3 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Dear Tric792,
Absolutely! That seems to be their team's pattern-- i mean why would you want to get rid of a young star like Miguel Cabrera. i guess they just can't seem to make money there-- i believe they year they won the World Series in 1997 they lost money in spite of that.
When you think about all the great players they have had over the years and how many of them are doing well for other clubs- just makes you wonder how many more rings they could have won by keeping a core nucleus together.
Nickster
2007-11-09 19:55:57 · answer #4 · answered by Nickster 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO!! That 1st firesale got them guys like Lowell who led them to thier 2nd championship. The Marlins are one of the best ran teams in all of baseball. I'm a Yankee fan but I live in Florida so I watch both teams VERY closely. I knew in the middle of 2003 (May-June) I knew that they were going all the way. I made a lot of money that year. (Even got all the postseason brackets perfectly to the game).
As a Yankee fan I wish we would run our team more like them.
Except then the Marlins would have been much better off to keep Girardi (which amazed me they got rid of him). But they do run off a 5-6 year plan, trying to build talent and then pay for free agents to support that talent once they are ready to win. It's worked twice for them already (fastest team to win it's 1st and 2nd World Series), and I predict it to continue to happen in the future.
Why all the Marlins hate when they do more w/ less than anyone out there?!? They even made the most money out of any team this year. $44+Million.
2007-11-10 01:44:09 · answer #5 · answered by Legends Never Die 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
the reason Florida and Tampa don't have money to keep great teams is 'cause there is too much spring training baseball in FL. If they would move out to a city who needs a team,fans would attend and they would keep their players.
cities:
Las Vegas, Portland Oregon,Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Charlette NC
Or maybe just delete some teams so other teams could be more competitive.
say by to: Florida, Pittsburgh, Tampa,KC Royals low money means low fan base and vise versa
2007-11-09 21:46:19 · answer #6 · answered by richard w 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To Buffalo1, sure there is economic inequality in MLB, but most of the problem is the fact that, except for the NY Mets, everyone of the expansion teams are in small markets. Blame the teams' owners for not putting their teams in bigger markets to compete with the big market teams. I agree the Yankees have a huge payroll, but they are in the largest of all the big markets, and they are the richest team in sports. Do you really think it's realistic for them not to have the highest payroll.
2007-11-09 19:34:03 · answer #7 · answered by pedrooch 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course. That points up to the problem of economic inequality in MLB. The Yankees would have just thrown big bucks and multiyear contracts at everyone. The Marlins might end up moving to Las Vegas.
2007-11-09 18:30:51 · answer #8 · answered by Buffalo1 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
no because thanks to the first fire sale it gave them the youth to get the next world series, also that is how they do it win the world series and trade everyone for great young prospects it seems to work for them
2007-11-10 03:23:18 · answer #9 · answered by texasman75147 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the marlins have money they made the most money last year of all teams money is the only thing there owner cares about.
2007-11-09 19:45:29 · answer #10 · answered by Dan B 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋