Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

An odd baseball bet

Reply to Thread
  1. GoldenRicky GoldenRicky is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 99
    Joined: Feb 06

    Apr 3rd, 2006 (4/3/2006 1:36pm)

    A friend and I just debated whether certain pathetic baseball franchises could EVER win a world series. I eventually got him to agree that if MLB was played forever and all teams existed forever that all would eventually be world champs. As of now there are 8 existing teams that have never won a world series. These are the Mariners, Rangers, Tampa Bay, Houston, Brewers, Padres, Rockies and Nationals. I bet $100 that at least five of these teams will win a world series in the next 100 seasons. Strike-shortened seasons would not count. Of course, he and I will probably not be around to see this to the end, but we will put the bet into our wills. I'm probably going to hell for getting my not even born yet children involved in gambling, but $100 won't mean much in 100 hundred years anyway. Any thoughts? I'm just curious to see what side of this bet people would take.
  2. HungryShark HungryShark is offline

    Ann Arbor, MI
    United States

    Posts: 631
    Joined: Jan 06

    Apr 3rd, 2006 (4/3/2006 1:47pm) in reply to GoldenRicky

    All of those eight franchises won't last 100 years. What kind of provisions do you have in place for a team's contraction? That being said, if they were all to last, I still don't think every one of them would win a championship.
  3. Shaaarrrp Shaaarrrp is offline

    Arlington, VA
    United States

    Posts: 9,196
    Joined: May 05

    Apr 3rd, 2006 (4/3/2006 1:48pm) in reply to GoldenRicky

    you are correct sir
     
  4. GoldenRicky GoldenRicky is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 99
    Joined: Feb 06

    Apr 3rd, 2006 (4/3/2006 2:12pm) in reply to HungryShark

    Yeah, I realize the contraction issue is a problem and we haven't decided how to deal with that yet. Your suggestions are welcome.

    The bet was not that all of these teams would win, just 5 of them. This all started because my friend is a pompous Yankees fan who basically believes the Yankees are about 50% to win every year, and that that will never change. I think there is more and more parity in the league every year and that eventually big market teams will not be able to buy championships as easily since the current trend is to limit their ability to outspend everyone. My belief in this trend continuing is why I made the bet. That being said, I think several of the teams (Mariners, Rangers, Houston, Padres and Nationals) that have not yet won have the financial means to field competitive teams every year.
    Thread Starter
  5. Zee7 Zee7 is offline

    Newport News, VA
    United States

    Posts: 1,508
    Joined: Jan 06

    Apr 3rd, 2006 (4/3/2006 2:44pm) in reply to GoldenRicky

    I think that probably ALL of them will win, if they aren't contracted. Look at it this way...in about 100 years of baseball so far all but these 8 have won a title. And really you can't look back 100 years because all the teams mentioned are "recent" expansion teams, the longest in existence is Houston I think(*EDIT** Houston arrived in 1962, Rangers actually began in 1961). So that's about 45 years in MLB, no way in HELL a team goes 150 years w/o winning a series.

    Zman
  6. GoldenRicky GoldenRicky is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 99
    Joined: Feb 06

    Apr 3rd, 2006 (4/3/2006 4:52pm) in reply to Zee7

    That's a great point Z...I hadn't looked at it from quite that angle. I was thinking of the fact that of all the baseball teams there are, only one of them (the Cubs) is now approaching a 100 yr drought. This is despite the fact that the mighty Yankees have won about 25% of the World Series played over that span...and I doubt they will sustain that success rate.
    Thread Starter
  7. Octan3_ipwnsippin Octan3_ipwnsippin is offline

    Winnipeg
    Canada

    Posts: 6,263
    Joined: Feb 06

    Apr 3rd, 2006 (4/3/2006 4:54pm) in reply to GoldenRicky

    rockies win it next year
  8. GoldenRicky GoldenRicky is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 99
    Joined: Feb 06

    Apr 3rd, 2006 (4/3/2006 6:53pm) in reply to Octan3_ipwnsippin

    For my children's sake I hope so.
    Thread Starter
  9. HungryShark HungryShark is offline

    Ann Arbor, MI
    United States

    Posts: 631
    Joined: Jan 06

    Apr 3rd, 2006 (4/3/2006 7:06pm) in reply to GoldenRicky

    No way even 5 will win championships. I'll bet anyone $1,000 5 of those teams dont win championships in the next 100 years.
  10. GoldenRicky GoldenRicky is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 99
    Joined: Feb 06

    Apr 3rd, 2006 (4/3/2006 7:21pm) in reply to GoldenRicky

    As far as the contraction issue goes, how about this....select teams that have only one championship as replacements. These teams could be pooled together and selected at random to determine the 1st replacement, 2nd, etc.... The substituted team would have only those years remaining from the time of the replacement to the end of 100 season span (beginning this season) to win a title. Does this seem fair. I can't think of a better solution.
    Thread Starter
  11. Earlybird893 Earlybird893 is offline

    Posts: 9,017
    Joined: Feb 06

    Apr 3rd, 2006 (4/3/2006 9:20pm) in reply to GoldenRicky

    you are wrong because of one little detail, the cardinals are about to go 99/100 in the next century, no technicalities needed in this one
  12. GoldenRicky GoldenRicky is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 99
    Joined: Feb 06

    Apr 3rd, 2006 (4/3/2006 9:37pm) in reply to Earlybird893

    LOL...Care to wager anything on that?
    Thread Starter
  13. gopowercat gopowercat is offline

    Mcpherson, KS
    United States

    Posts: 290
    Joined: Oct 05

    Apr 4th, 2006 (4/4/2006 1:39am) in reply to GoldenRicky

    thank god my royals won in 1985 ;)
  14. Lenny Lenny is offline lail henny!

    Nashville, TN
    United States

    Posts: 8,790
    Joined: Nov 05

    Apr 4th, 2006 (4/4/2006 3:52am) in reply to GoldenRicky

    Lol, if you ARE serious about this you should set the money aside in an investment account-- you each put in the $100 and at the end of the 100 years, whoever wins their beneficiary would get some real money! (I read about a bet of this sort before)

    As for the contraction I'd say a team's failure as a franchise would be part of their failure to win a world series. Since it's only 5/8 then teams that fold could just be considered lost as possible winners.
    If a franchise changes cities and names but maintains rights to the franchise's history they should be kept in the bet.

    I'd say Rangers, Mariners, Nationals, Houston, Brewers and Padres all have a real shot.
  15. GoldenRicky GoldenRicky is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 99
    Joined: Feb 06

    Apr 4th, 2006 (4/4/2006 12:58pm) in reply to Lenny

    Lenny,

    I really like the investment account idea. I'm not so sure about simply eliminating teams that are contracted though. A look at recent history shows that contraction could easily happen when it isn't justified. It was a close call for the Twins and they've been pretty successful since then. If contracted teams were to be eliminated then I would want the bet changed to stipulate 4/8 winning the title.
    Thread Starter
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads