New Computer

[DonBraswell]

Boy it sure is fun swapping every thing over from old computer to the new one. I used 8 CD's and 2 pin drives. Didn't save a single PSA file. For got how big those files can be. I think I'll just start new Associations.
Don

[DonBraswell]

The new computer is faster. Transfered every thing over except the old associations, man were those files big. Filled up 8 CD's, a 256 mg pin drive and a 1 gig pin drive. I have the game going again now.

Don

[motnahp]

Don:

Forgive my "ig-nance". Is that elephant an old Athletics logo?

If so, I love it. If it's a University of Alabama logo......$#@A%&*&@&* ! [;)]

[DonBraswell]

motnahp,
I just started a new league. My new team is the tallent starved, money poor Connie Mack A's of 1946. I love taking on the under dog.
Don

[motnahp]

That's good news. I can relate to talent-starved, money poor Athletics teams. I've long admired the Oakland franchise's ability to build winners under the most difficult of circumstances.

In today's baseball economy, unfortunately, teams like Oakland and Minnesota are doomed to yo-yo their way up and down the standings. Those two systems have been among the best at growing talent since the mid 1960's. Their only real chance of winning big now is the hope that the right number of their prospects reach MLB together and have great years at the same time. To do that requires an incredible amount of skill and a lot of luck.

Quick: Who was the last high-profile free agent either of these teams has signed for more than a one-year contract (in the last 15 years)?

The NFL has (apparently) brought much-needed parity to their league. It seems as if half the teams have a legitimate chance to win it all each year. In baseball, alas, the number is about half a dozen at the most.

[GNDN]

There are 2 major differences I see between the NFL & MLB from an operational stand point:
 
1)  The NFL player's union is significantly weaker than MLB's.
2)  The NFL's owners care about the league, the same cannot be said for MLB's owners.
 
Just my 2 cents to Mon's coment about parity.

[KG Erwin]

I keep wondering how different things would be if the free agent market and financials ON existed in the 40s & 50s. Also, cash deals for players.

In any case, the amateur draft doesn't do too badly as an equalizer, especially during the talent-rich years of "Golden Age II (1946-60)". Despite the dominance of the New York teams (until 1958), there were a few other teams that broke through on occasion (the Cardinals, Red Sox, Phillies, Indians, Pirates etc).

[motnahp]

I've haven't been motivated enough yet to find out (yet). Thanks for the idea, KG. [;)] I've worked through a couple assns from the opposite angle, forbidding free agency (post-1975) altogether.

It might be quite interesting to start around 1940 or earlier and see how much of a dynasty the Yankees would've actually had under today's system of player movement.

One thing I could not replicate would be those AAA and AA Yankees who were banished to the bushes for life. I'm confident in saying that a great many of them would have made fine major leaguers on other teams, but never got a sniff of the bigs with the Yankees.

I'm a sucker for odd sports books and biographies. I'm curious if anyone has any knowledge of any books on this topic. It would be a better read if it was written or co-written by a former player, someone held back by the system.

Anyone have knowledge of something like this?