is there really room in the pen for masterson? Paps closes, okijima and the guy we just got in the cocco trade with kc are the 8th inn guys. Delcarmen, lopes and they picked up another reliever will be the other bullpen guys. I don't trust masterson in the pen. He always has guys on base. I would prefer he starts, I don't trust a sinkerball pitcher with mild control issues in the pen. Let masterson, bowden, buckholtz, Wakefield and penny all compete for the 4/5 slots in the rotation.
The 2008 MLB Season Thread (Update: Phillies Won)
- Thread starter lordwow
- Start date
- Status
delcarmen had a rough start but settled down. IMO masterson will run into the same shit delcamen/Oki ran into the first couple months last year, in that teams will make adjustments and masterson won't. I would really like him to be a starter in the long term.
[quote name='Monsta Mack']If the Marlins can win the world series anything could happen.
If the Rays can make the world series anything could happen.
Hell, the Dolphins just made the playoffs after only winning one game last season![/quote]
it's thinking like that, that make this game unwatchable and give 0 chance to most teams...
Tampa got lucky, so did Florida, they got hot at the right times and their pitching was great. Watch what happens this season when the Rays pitching doesn't play nearly as well as last season.
If the Rays can make the world series anything could happen.
Hell, the Dolphins just made the playoffs after only winning one game last season![/quote]
it's thinking like that, that make this game unwatchable and give 0 chance to most teams...
Tampa got lucky, so did Florida, they got hot at the right times and their pitching was great. Watch what happens this season when the Rays pitching doesn't play nearly as well as last season.
[quote name='DJSteel']it's thinking like that, that make this game unwatchable and give 0 chance to most teams...
Tampa got lucky, so did Florida, they got hot at the right times and their pitching was great. Watch what happens this season when the Rays pitching doesn't play nearly as well as last season.[/QUOTE]
Florida won the WS in 97 and 2003. So you are saying they got lucky twice in a 7 year span? That's some good luck!
If you look at the past 20 years or so you can see that money does not buy you a championship. I do agree that teams do have an edge, but in no way does the recent signings the Yankees made guarantee them a championship or even a playoff spot.
Tampa got lucky, so did Florida, they got hot at the right times and their pitching was great. Watch what happens this season when the Rays pitching doesn't play nearly as well as last season.[/QUOTE]
Florida won the WS in 97 and 2003. So you are saying they got lucky twice in a 7 year span? That's some good luck!
If you look at the past 20 years or so you can see that money does not buy you a championship. I do agree that teams do have an edge, but in no way does the recent signings the Yankees made guarantee them a championship or even a playoff spot.
[quote name='DomLando']Florida won the WS in 97 and 2003. So you are saying they got lucky twice in a 7 year span? That's some good luck!
If you look at the past 20 years or so you can see that money does not buy you a championship. I do agree that teams do have an edge, but in no way does the recent signings the Yankees made guarantee them a championship or even a playoff spot.[/quote]
nothing in life is guaranteed really.. the Florida WS win in 97 was money built while the the one 2003 was all about lightning in a bottle. I don't believe that it is far for the balance of the game or the health of the sport by cutting of the small teams from the free agent market. Teams will eventually die off or move. Money might not always buy you a championship, but it definitely increases your odds.
If you look at the past 20 years or so you can see that money does not buy you a championship. I do agree that teams do have an edge, but in no way does the recent signings the Yankees made guarantee them a championship or even a playoff spot.[/quote]
nothing in life is guaranteed really.. the Florida WS win in 97 was money built while the the one 2003 was all about lightning in a bottle. I don't believe that it is far for the balance of the game or the health of the sport by cutting of the small teams from the free agent market. Teams will eventually die off or move. Money might not always buy you a championship, but it definitely increases your odds.
You can whine and bitch about a salary cap all you want, but unless you are writting the commish office nothing is going to change. I don't agree with you, IMO willing to spend the big bucks doesn't improve your odds, but allows you to make mistakes. A team like pitts couldn't afford to make a big investment and have it not pan out. The yanks/redsox etc can afford to sign a player that doesn't pan out. IE carl pavano or matt clement.
Even if there was a salary cap, would the pirates be any better? They traded nady, marte, and bay and didn't get a single starting pitcher. A solid team is BUILT upon solid starting pitching. You team has horrible scouting/player development. The rays have solid young starting pitching. They will be competitve for at least several years. Yes, they do have questions in there bullpen, but they have 4 studs in the starting rotation and a solid 5 guy in sonastein.
The marlins are still competive and it is because they make excellent trades. There is even a rumor the redsox are in discussions to aquire hanley ramirez in a trade that would send ellsbury and 2 more STARTING PITCHING prospects. When you dump your big name players, you need to get young starting pitching prospects.
Even if there was a salary cap, would the pirates be any better? They traded nady, marte, and bay and didn't get a single starting pitcher. A solid team is BUILT upon solid starting pitching. You team has horrible scouting/player development. The rays have solid young starting pitching. They will be competitve for at least several years. Yes, they do have questions in there bullpen, but they have 4 studs in the starting rotation and a solid 5 guy in sonastein.
The marlins are still competive and it is because they make excellent trades. There is even a rumor the redsox are in discussions to aquire hanley ramirez in a trade that would send ellsbury and 2 more STARTING PITCHING prospects. When you dump your big name players, you need to get young starting pitching prospects.
not that I don't agree with you about Pittsburgh, but they traded Bay. Marte, and Nady because they couldn't resign them. yes the Pirates would have probably made the same mistakes, but with a salary cap they would be forced to use their money instead of them pocketing it like I believe they are doing. They might have spent a bit extra to get a couple decent mid level players and maybe they'd be competitive. hell... even .500
Tampa might have had a good year last year.. but 1 year doesn't make them solid. The Tigers had one good year, same with the Rockies.. Jeff Francis was solid in their run. what happened to them..
Tampa might have had a good year last year.. but 1 year doesn't make them solid. The Tigers had one good year, same with the Rockies.. Jeff Francis was solid in their run. what happened to them..
craven_fiend
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 112 (100%)
[quote name='DJSteel']not that I don't agree with you about Pittsburgh, but they traded Bay. Marte, and Nady because they couldn't resign them. yes the Pirates would have probably made the same mistakes, but with a salary cap they would be forced to use their money instead of them pocketing it like I believe they are doing. They might have spent a bit extra to get a couple decent mid level players and maybe they'd be competitive. hell... even .500
Tampa might have had a good year last year.. but 1 year doesn't make them solid. The Tigers had one good year, same with the Rockies.. Jeff Francis was solid in their run. what happened to them..[/quote]
Tulowitzki being hurt is what happened to the Rockies. They came on strong towards the end of the season, when he came back.
Tampa might have had a good year last year.. but 1 year doesn't make them solid. The Tigers had one good year, same with the Rockies.. Jeff Francis was solid in their run. what happened to them..[/quote]
Tulowitzki being hurt is what happened to the Rockies. They came on strong towards the end of the season, when he came back.
ph33r m3
CAGiversary!
[quote name='ryanbph']You can whine and bitch about a salary cap all you want, but unless you are writting the commish office nothing is going to change. I don't agree with you, IMO willing to spend the big bucks doesn't improve your odds, but allows you to make mistakes. A team like pitts couldn't afford to make a big investment and have it not pan out. The yanks/redsox etc can afford to sign a player that doesn't pan out. IE carl pavano or matt clement.
Even if there was a salary cap, would the pirates be any better? They traded nady, marte, and bay and didn't get a single starting pitcher. A solid team is BUILT upon solid starting pitching. You team has horrible scouting/player development. The rays have solid young starting pitching. They will be competitve for at least several years. Yes, they do have questions in there bullpen, but they have 4 studs in the starting rotation and a solid 5 guy in sonastein.
The marlins are still competive and it is because they make excellent trades. There is even a rumor the redsox are in discussions to aquire hanley ramirez in a trade that would send ellsbury and 2 more STARTING PITCHING prospects. When you dump your big name players, you need to get young starting pitching prospects.[/quote]
I'll have to disagree with you here, signing high-priced free agents does you give better odds to win, because you have BETTER players. It changes your whole structure of how you run your team.
Take the A's for example, brilliantly run club, they turned Mark Mulder into Dan Haren, and the trade of Dan Haren into getting Matt Holliday. Genius moves, but they can't re-sign the guy after this year. Just ain't gonna happen.
You don't think the Twins wouldn't love to have Johan back? If they had the Yanks/Red Sox/Mets money, dude would've never even come close to being traded.
If the Brewers had spending money you don't think they'd take Sabathia back in a heartbeat?
The problem with arguing about the Rays is that they tanked it/sucked shit for what? a good 10 years? No way that shit flies anywhere.
Even if there was a salary cap, would the pirates be any better? They traded nady, marte, and bay and didn't get a single starting pitcher. A solid team is BUILT upon solid starting pitching. You team has horrible scouting/player development. The rays have solid young starting pitching. They will be competitve for at least several years. Yes, they do have questions in there bullpen, but they have 4 studs in the starting rotation and a solid 5 guy in sonastein.
The marlins are still competive and it is because they make excellent trades. There is even a rumor the redsox are in discussions to aquire hanley ramirez in a trade that would send ellsbury and 2 more STARTING PITCHING prospects. When you dump your big name players, you need to get young starting pitching prospects.[/quote]
I'll have to disagree with you here, signing high-priced free agents does you give better odds to win, because you have BETTER players. It changes your whole structure of how you run your team.
Take the A's for example, brilliantly run club, they turned Mark Mulder into Dan Haren, and the trade of Dan Haren into getting Matt Holliday. Genius moves, but they can't re-sign the guy after this year. Just ain't gonna happen.
You don't think the Twins wouldn't love to have Johan back? If they had the Yanks/Red Sox/Mets money, dude would've never even come close to being traded.
If the Brewers had spending money you don't think they'd take Sabathia back in a heartbeat?
The problem with arguing about the Rays is that they tanked it/sucked shit for what? a good 10 years? No way that shit flies anywhere.
The rays changed the way they did things. For the first couple of years they signed superstars that were well past there prime. Last I checked the twins did very well without santana, the Indians started off horible but played well at the end of the year and got a bunch of young players for cc. The brewers made a big play in trying to resign cc. The differnce money wise between the yanks and brewers was only a couple mill per season. The bug differnce was length.
And last I checked both nady and bay both had 1 more year under contract and they are fairly cheap players for the money they make. It isn't like the big market teams would have rushing to sign them in the offseason NEXT year. And there is a shitload of corner OF available this offseason and there value is dropping rapidly. In the end you can get a solid player for 8 - 10 mill per season which any team can afford espically considerin the #s they put up.
Watching the red sox for more then 2 decades I have learned 2 things. First off pitching wins championships. For years in the free agent market we went after bats. Jack clark, rob deer, jose canseco, tom brunasky, Dante bichette, jose offerman etc ...they never paid attention to the pitching and would trade pitching prospects at the trade deadline for nobodys. New ownership and theo as the new GM changed that. The only big money free agents we have gotten have been jd drew and dice k (if u want to include the posting fee otherwise he is a rather cheap SP). Our inf has 3 out of the starting 5 players all homegrown. Lowell was a throw in the Beckett trade and we gave up a stud in hanley ramirez and a young pitcher in anibel sanchez. Varitek came to the redsox with derek lowe in a trade from Seattle for heathcliff slocumb. Ellsbury is homegrown, drew was a free agent, and bay came in the manny deal. Ortiz was picked up off the scrapeheap for cheap. The twins cut him and went with morneau/mierkewitz instead. Beckett came in a trade and we gave up a stud. Dice k was a free agent, lester was homegrown, Wakefield was another scrapeheap player and the 5th spot will go to penny (fa) or the homegrown buckholtz/masterson/bowden.
And giants fans shouldn't be saying shit about free agent spending. Barry
ing ditto and 17 or so million? How about the 8 mill you are paying a 45 year old randy Johnson. Didn't you sign rent a wreck as well? The giants have the young pitching and have young positional players developing, they are a year or two from being a solid/great team.
Look at the yahoo baseball mailbag that Gordon edes wrote. Most of the emails were bitching about the yanks and there spending. Look at all the big names/contracts they have paid since 2001 and they still haven't won. Or the info about how many different NL teams have been in the championship series in the past 10 years.
The 2nd thing I learned is that all teams make money. If the pirates increased there payroll by 30 mill I bet the owner is still making a shitload. You can't whine and bitch about big market teams are spending a shitload when your owner is pocketing a shitload. The old saying is it takes money to make money. It's your owners fault. It isn't like it can't be turned around. My money is on the kc royals being a solid franchise in another year or 2. Since they brought in the new gm they have turned the franchise around. Wait and see.
And last I checked both nady and bay both had 1 more year under contract and they are fairly cheap players for the money they make. It isn't like the big market teams would have rushing to sign them in the offseason NEXT year. And there is a shitload of corner OF available this offseason and there value is dropping rapidly. In the end you can get a solid player for 8 - 10 mill per season which any team can afford espically considerin the #s they put up.
Watching the red sox for more then 2 decades I have learned 2 things. First off pitching wins championships. For years in the free agent market we went after bats. Jack clark, rob deer, jose canseco, tom brunasky, Dante bichette, jose offerman etc ...they never paid attention to the pitching and would trade pitching prospects at the trade deadline for nobodys. New ownership and theo as the new GM changed that. The only big money free agents we have gotten have been jd drew and dice k (if u want to include the posting fee otherwise he is a rather cheap SP). Our inf has 3 out of the starting 5 players all homegrown. Lowell was a throw in the Beckett trade and we gave up a stud in hanley ramirez and a young pitcher in anibel sanchez. Varitek came to the redsox with derek lowe in a trade from Seattle for heathcliff slocumb. Ellsbury is homegrown, drew was a free agent, and bay came in the manny deal. Ortiz was picked up off the scrapeheap for cheap. The twins cut him and went with morneau/mierkewitz instead. Beckett came in a trade and we gave up a stud. Dice k was a free agent, lester was homegrown, Wakefield was another scrapeheap player and the 5th spot will go to penny (fa) or the homegrown buckholtz/masterson/bowden.
And giants fans shouldn't be saying shit about free agent spending. Barry
ing ditto and 17 or so million? How about the 8 mill you are paying a 45 year old randy Johnson. Didn't you sign rent a wreck as well? The giants have the young pitching and have young positional players developing, they are a year or two from being a solid/great team. Look at the yahoo baseball mailbag that Gordon edes wrote. Most of the emails were bitching about the yanks and there spending. Look at all the big names/contracts they have paid since 2001 and they still haven't won. Or the info about how many different NL teams have been in the championship series in the past 10 years.
The 2nd thing I learned is that all teams make money. If the pirates increased there payroll by 30 mill I bet the owner is still making a shitload. You can't whine and bitch about big market teams are spending a shitload when your owner is pocketing a shitload. The old saying is it takes money to make money. It's your owners fault. It isn't like it can't be turned around. My money is on the kc royals being a solid franchise in another year or 2. Since they brought in the new gm they have turned the franchise around. Wait and see.
It must be nice to be on that side of reality.... things always look better from the top.. yes, there is more to it than money, but if you look at all your dealings to get these players. If there was a salary cap, you might not have gotten these players...
yes teams make money but there is nothing forcing them to put it back into their team. A salary cap would.
yes teams make money but there is nothing forcing them to put it back into their team. A salary cap would.
[quote name='DJSteel']It must be nice to be on that side of reality.... things always look better from the top.. yes, there is more to it than money, but if you look at all your dealings to get these players. If there was a salary cap, you might not have gotten these players...
yes teams make money but there is nothing forcing them to put it back into their team. A salary cap would.[/QUOTE]
A salary cap would not force a team to put more money into the team, it actually does the opposite as it limits how much a team can spend. As much as the Yankees are maligned for throwing their money around, at least they are motivated by fielding a competitive team every season rather than pinching every penny possible like certain other teams. A salary floor however, would force teams to invest at least a minimum amount into a team's payroll and at least bring about some degree of parity.
yes teams make money but there is nothing forcing them to put it back into their team. A salary cap would.[/QUOTE]
A salary cap would not force a team to put more money into the team, it actually does the opposite as it limits how much a team can spend. As much as the Yankees are maligned for throwing their money around, at least they are motivated by fielding a competitive team every season rather than pinching every penny possible like certain other teams. A salary floor however, would force teams to invest at least a minimum amount into a team's payroll and at least bring about some degree of parity.
[quote name='dopa345']A salary cap would not force a team to put more money into the team, it actually does the opposite as it limits how much a team can spend. As much as the Yankees are maligned for throwing their money around, at least they are motivated by fielding a competitive team every season rather than pinching every penny possible like certain other teams. A salary floor however, would force teams to invest at least a minimum amount into a team's payroll and at least bring about some degree of parity.[/quote]
salary caps have floors instituted..
The NFL - In 2008, the cap will be about $116 million per team, while the floor will be 85.2% of the cap, or $98.8 million; the salary floor percentage will increase 1.2% per year until it reaches 90% of the cap in 2012.
The Yankees get like a billion dollars for their TV contract.. they are motivated by money, but their market is much larger than say Pittsburgh or hell.. 98% of the other league.
salary caps have floors instituted..
The NFL - In 2008, the cap will be about $116 million per team, while the floor will be 85.2% of the cap, or $98.8 million; the salary floor percentage will increase 1.2% per year until it reaches 90% of the cap in 2012.
The Yankees get like a billion dollars for their TV contract.. they are motivated by money, but their market is much larger than say Pittsburgh or hell.. 98% of the other league.
[quote name='ryanbph']the yanks own there own tv network[/quote]
they are part owner.. and still have to have a deal to make them exclusive... which is also an unfair advantage considering how much money can be generated in NYC versus every other city in the country.
they are part owner.. and still have to have a deal to make them exclusive... which is also an unfair advantage considering how much money can be generated in NYC versus every other city in the country.
ph33r m3
CAGiversary!
[quote name='ryanbph']The rays changed the way they did things. For the first couple of years they signed superstars that were well past there prime. Last I checked the twins did very well without santana, the Indians started off horible but played well at the end of the year and got a bunch of young players for cc. The brewers made a big play in trying to resign cc. The differnce money wise between the yanks and brewers was only a couple mill per season. The bug differnce was length.
And last I checked both nady and bay both had 1 more year under contract and they are fairly cheap players for the money they make. It isn't like the big market teams would have rushing to sign them in the offseason NEXT year. And there is a shitload of corner OF available this offseason and there value is dropping rapidly. In the end you can get a solid player for 8 - 10 mill per season which any team can afford espically considerin the #s they put up.
Watching the red sox for more then 2 decades I have learned 2 things. First off pitching wins championships. For years in the free agent market we went after bats. Jack clark, rob deer, jose canseco, tom brunasky, Dante bichette, jose offerman etc ...they never paid attention to the pitching and would trade pitching prospects at the trade deadline for nobodys. New ownership and theo as the new GM changed that. The only big money free agents we have gotten have been jd drew and dice k (if u want to include the posting fee otherwise he is a rather cheap SP). Our inf has 3 out of the starting 5 players all homegrown. Lowell was a throw in the Beckett trade and we gave up a stud in hanley ramirez and a young pitcher in anibel sanchez. Varitek came to the redsox with derek lowe in a trade from Seattle for heathcliff slocumb. Ellsbury is homegrown, drew was a free agent, and bay came in the manny deal. Ortiz was picked up off the scrapeheap for cheap. The twins cut him and went with morneau/mierkewitz instead. Beckett came in a trade and we gave up a stud. Dice k was a free agent, lester was homegrown, Wakefield was another scrapeheap player and the 5th spot will go to penny (fa) or the homegrown buckholtz/masterson/bowden.
And giants fans shouldn't be saying shit about free agent spending. Barrying ditto and 17 or so million? How about the 8 mill you are paying a 45 year old randy Johnson. Didn't you sign rent a wreck as well? The giants have the young pitching and have young positional players developing, they are a year or two from being a solid/great team.
Look at the yahoo baseball mailbag that Gordon edes wrote. Most of the emails were bitching about the yanks and there spending. Look at all the big names/contracts they have paid since 2001 and they still haven't won. Or the info about how many different NL teams have been in the championship series in the past 10 years.
The 2nd thing I learned is that all teams make money. If the pirates increased there payroll by 30 mill I bet the owner is still making a shitload. You can't whine and bitch about big market teams are spending a shitload when your owner is pocketing a shitload. The old saying is it takes money to make money. It's your owners fault. It isn't like it can't be turned around. My money is on the kc royals being a solid franchise in another year or 2. Since they brought in the new gm they have turned the franchise around. Wait and see.[/quote]
The says i'm bitching nimrod? Clearly stating points, not saying the Gaints are some small-market team, they spend money.
You think the Red Sox would get Beckett and Lowell off the Marlins, if the Marlins had money? Wouldain' hung up on the Red Sox.
And last I checked both nady and bay both had 1 more year under contract and they are fairly cheap players for the money they make. It isn't like the big market teams would have rushing to sign them in the offseason NEXT year. And there is a shitload of corner OF available this offseason and there value is dropping rapidly. In the end you can get a solid player for 8 - 10 mill per season which any team can afford espically considerin the #s they put up.
Watching the red sox for more then 2 decades I have learned 2 things. First off pitching wins championships. For years in the free agent market we went after bats. Jack clark, rob deer, jose canseco, tom brunasky, Dante bichette, jose offerman etc ...they never paid attention to the pitching and would trade pitching prospects at the trade deadline for nobodys. New ownership and theo as the new GM changed that. The only big money free agents we have gotten have been jd drew and dice k (if u want to include the posting fee otherwise he is a rather cheap SP). Our inf has 3 out of the starting 5 players all homegrown. Lowell was a throw in the Beckett trade and we gave up a stud in hanley ramirez and a young pitcher in anibel sanchez. Varitek came to the redsox with derek lowe in a trade from Seattle for heathcliff slocumb. Ellsbury is homegrown, drew was a free agent, and bay came in the manny deal. Ortiz was picked up off the scrapeheap for cheap. The twins cut him and went with morneau/mierkewitz instead. Beckett came in a trade and we gave up a stud. Dice k was a free agent, lester was homegrown, Wakefield was another scrapeheap player and the 5th spot will go to penny (fa) or the homegrown buckholtz/masterson/bowden.
And giants fans shouldn't be saying shit about free agent spending. Barry
ing ditto and 17 or so million? How about the 8 mill you are paying a 45 year old randy Johnson. Didn't you sign rent a wreck as well? The giants have the young pitching and have young positional players developing, they are a year or two from being a solid/great team. Look at the yahoo baseball mailbag that Gordon edes wrote. Most of the emails were bitching about the yanks and there spending. Look at all the big names/contracts they have paid since 2001 and they still haven't won. Or the info about how many different NL teams have been in the championship series in the past 10 years.
The 2nd thing I learned is that all teams make money. If the pirates increased there payroll by 30 mill I bet the owner is still making a shitload. You can't whine and bitch about big market teams are spending a shitload when your owner is pocketing a shitload. The old saying is it takes money to make money. It's your owners fault. It isn't like it can't be turned around. My money is on the kc royals being a solid franchise in another year or 2. Since they brought in the new gm they have turned the franchise around. Wait and see.[/quote]
The
says i'm bitching nimrod? Clearly stating points, not saying the Gaints are some small-market team, they spend money.You think the Red Sox would get Beckett and Lowell off the Marlins, if the Marlins had money? Woulda
in' hung up on the Red Sox.
Matt Young
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 8 (100%)
I had no idea there was going to be an MLB Network. It just went live about 1 minute ago. It's sandwiched between the NFL and NHL Networks on DirecTV, channel 213.
[quote name='ph33r m3']The says i'm bitching nimrod? Clearly stating points, not saying the Gaints are some small-market team, they spend money.
You think the Red Sox would get Beckett and Lowell off the Marlins, if the Marlins had money? Wouldain' hung up on the Red Sox.[/QUOTE]
They do have money, they got almost 30 million dollars from revenue sharing alone last year.
People need to get over this myth of there being poor teams in baseball. MLB writes these teams a check for 20 to 30 million dollars, on top of TV and merchandising contracts which are evenly split, to enable them to improve their product. But these owners are just pocketing that.
says i'm bitching nimrod? Clearly stating points, not saying the Gaints are some small-market team, they spend money.You think the Red Sox would get Beckett and Lowell off the Marlins, if the Marlins had money? Woulda
in' hung up on the Red Sox.[/QUOTE]They do have money, they got almost 30 million dollars from revenue sharing alone last year.
People need to get over this myth of there being poor teams in baseball. MLB writes these teams a check for 20 to 30 million dollars, on top of TV and merchandising contracts which are evenly split, to enable them to improve their product. But these owners are just pocketing that.
[quote name='dafoomie']They do have money, they got almost 30 million dollars from revenue sharing alone last year.
People need to get over this myth of there being poor teams in baseball. MLB writes these teams a check for 20 to 30 million dollars, on top of TV and merchandising contracts which are evenly split, to enable them to improve their product. But these owners are just pocketing that.[/quote]
you are so wrong... first of all revenue sharing will be down this season since the Yankees are not participating in that and pushing that money towards their new stadium. Second of all, the Yankees, Red Sox, etc are all overpaying so much for superstars that 20-30 mill won't get teams even 1 superstar, let alone a decent player to a long term contract. Like I said, it is nice to be on the top looking down, but don't think for one second that there aren't poor teams in MLB.
People need to get over this myth of there being poor teams in baseball. MLB writes these teams a check for 20 to 30 million dollars, on top of TV and merchandising contracts which are evenly split, to enable them to improve their product. But these owners are just pocketing that.[/quote]
you are so wrong... first of all revenue sharing will be down this season since the Yankees are not participating in that and pushing that money towards their new stadium. Second of all, the Yankees, Red Sox, etc are all overpaying so much for superstars that 20-30 mill won't get teams even 1 superstar, let alone a decent player to a long term contract. Like I said, it is nice to be on the top looking down, but don't think for one second that there aren't poor teams in MLB.
First and foremost the sox don't have any one close to 20 mill going into the 2009 season. This management group doesn't sown a lot on free agents. So far this offseason it has Been brad penny. Last year it was sean casey
Finally can we stop the bitching about rich teams etc.. You aren't changing anyones mind, and we clearly aren't changing yours. IMO you have some value points, but in the end my/nor your opinion isn't changing jack shit. Every team makes a shitload of money. A poor MLB team is still pocketing money hand over fist and it is the organizations decision not to reinvest it. The florida marlins got $60 million in money from the MLB last season, that is roughly a $40 mill profit after the teams salary and before ticket sales/concessions. It is from yahoo over view of the 2009 marlins
How Loria, professional sports’ preeminent miser, continues to propagate this farce without any backlash from his fellow owners or the players’ association is a mystery. He receives more than $60 million in shared money every season. Yes, the Marlins’ stadium is a sinkhole, and the Florida fans show no desire to support this team. Though the chicken needs to come before the egg? Right?
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-hsdmarlins123008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
As i mentioned before you should check out edes answers on yahoo. He is some of his answers to people like yourself bitching about the rich and the poor teams
In 2001, the year after they won their last World Series, the Yankees’ payroll was $112 million. Three years later it was $184 million, and a year later it broke the $200 million barrier. The Yankees have signed A-Rod, Johnny Damon, Jason Giambi, Mike Mussina, Hideki Matsui, Carl Pavano, Roger Clemens (again) and Randy Johnson, and haven’t won the World Series. They missed the postseason altogether in 2008, after a run of 13 straight playoff appearances. Maybe CC, A.J., Tex and who knows – Manny – puts them over the top in ‘09. But it’s no sure thing.
Baseball generated revenues in excess of $6.5 billion this year. Everyone is making money – owners and players – without resorting to a salary cap. There appears little doubt that the recession will have an impact on baseball in ‘09, but the debate over a salary cap ended a long time ago. Somebody just needs to tell Brewers owner Mark Attanasio that.
John: Maybe this will make you feel better: Since 1998, only one team, the St. Louis Cardinals, repeated as National League champion. Ten teams have won the N.L. pennant in that time. In the A.L., meanwhile, since the Yankees last won the World Series, nine teams have qualified for the playoffs, and there have been six pennant winners. And while they’ve been running up their payroll far beyond their competitors, the Yankees have consistently been hit with a luxury tax – $26 million-plus in ‘08, money that goes to help their rivals.
. The players have few gripes with the system as constituted; the big spenders like the Yankees drive up salaries across the board. The owners, meanwhile, are raking in big profits, which has a way of quashing their dissatisfaction with the system. And they have their complaints. The small-market owners moan about the big-market spenders; the big-market teams complain about how much they have to kick into revenue sharing. But both sides have realized the benefits of labor peace.
We should be talking about manny and how there isn't a market for him. How varitek should have accepted arbitration. How will mike Lowell feel coming to spring training, will he pull a nomar? How about the plummeting value of corner of. Is boras going to lose a lot of clients after this offseason?
Finally can we stop the bitching about rich teams etc.. You aren't changing anyones mind, and we clearly aren't changing yours. IMO you have some value points, but in the end my/nor your opinion isn't changing jack shit. Every team makes a shitload of money. A poor MLB team is still pocketing money hand over fist and it is the organizations decision not to reinvest it. The florida marlins got $60 million in money from the MLB last season, that is roughly a $40 mill profit after the teams salary and before ticket sales/concessions. It is from yahoo over view of the 2009 marlins
How Loria, professional sports’ preeminent miser, continues to propagate this farce without any backlash from his fellow owners or the players’ association is a mystery. He receives more than $60 million in shared money every season. Yes, the Marlins’ stadium is a sinkhole, and the Florida fans show no desire to support this team. Though the chicken needs to come before the egg? Right?
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-hsdmarlins123008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
As i mentioned before you should check out edes answers on yahoo. He is some of his answers to people like yourself bitching about the rich and the poor teams
In 2001, the year after they won their last World Series, the Yankees’ payroll was $112 million. Three years later it was $184 million, and a year later it broke the $200 million barrier. The Yankees have signed A-Rod, Johnny Damon, Jason Giambi, Mike Mussina, Hideki Matsui, Carl Pavano, Roger Clemens (again) and Randy Johnson, and haven’t won the World Series. They missed the postseason altogether in 2008, after a run of 13 straight playoff appearances. Maybe CC, A.J., Tex and who knows – Manny – puts them over the top in ‘09. But it’s no sure thing.
Baseball generated revenues in excess of $6.5 billion this year. Everyone is making money – owners and players – without resorting to a salary cap. There appears little doubt that the recession will have an impact on baseball in ‘09, but the debate over a salary cap ended a long time ago. Somebody just needs to tell Brewers owner Mark Attanasio that.
John: Maybe this will make you feel better: Since 1998, only one team, the St. Louis Cardinals, repeated as National League champion. Ten teams have won the N.L. pennant in that time. In the A.L., meanwhile, since the Yankees last won the World Series, nine teams have qualified for the playoffs, and there have been six pennant winners. And while they’ve been running up their payroll far beyond their competitors, the Yankees have consistently been hit with a luxury tax – $26 million-plus in ‘08, money that goes to help their rivals.
. The players have few gripes with the system as constituted; the big spenders like the Yankees drive up salaries across the board. The owners, meanwhile, are raking in big profits, which has a way of quashing their dissatisfaction with the system. And they have their complaints. The small-market owners moan about the big-market spenders; the big-market teams complain about how much they have to kick into revenue sharing. But both sides have realized the benefits of labor peace.
We should be talking about manny and how there isn't a market for him. How varitek should have accepted arbitration. How will mike Lowell feel coming to spring training, will he pull a nomar? How about the plummeting value of corner of. Is boras going to lose a lot of clients after this offseason?
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='DJSteel']you are so wrong... first of all revenue sharing will be down this season since the Yankees are not participating in that and pushing that money towards their new stadium. Second of all, the Yankees, Red Sox, etc are all overpaying so much for superstars that 20-30 mill won't get teams even 1 superstar, let alone a decent player to a long term contract. Like I said, it is nice to be on the top looking down, but don't think for one second that there aren't poor teams in MLB.[/QUOTE]
50-60 million is where mid-market teams usually are. An extra 30 million pushes you to 80-90, rich team territory.
The truth of the matter is that these teams with low payrolls can sell 0 tickets and still turn a profit due to revenue sharing and the national TV contract, and they are quite happy to do so. The lowest spending teams should be in the neighborhood of 60m, not 20. Revenue sharing is supposed to subsidize part of your payroll, not all of your operations.
50-60 million is where mid-market teams usually are. An extra 30 million pushes you to 80-90, rich team territory.
The truth of the matter is that these teams with low payrolls can sell 0 tickets and still turn a profit due to revenue sharing and the national TV contract, and they are quite happy to do so. The lowest spending teams should be in the neighborhood of 60m, not 20. Revenue sharing is supposed to subsidize part of your payroll, not all of your operations.
wow, the rays opened up the purse
Pat Burrell agrees to terms with Rays
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP)—The Tampa Bay Rays added a big bat for the middle of their batting order, agreeing to a $16 million, two-year contract with Pat Burrell.
The 32-year-old spent the past nine seasons with the Philadelphia Phillies, who defeated the Rays in the World Series a little over two months ago.
He hit .250 with 33 homers, 33 doubles and 86 RBIs last season and has averaged 31 homers, 99 RBIs and 103 walks over the past four seasons. A left fielder throughout his career, Burrell is expected to be used mostly as the designated hitter with Tampa Bay.
One of the Rays’ top priorities was to add a right-handed power hitter to a lineup also featuring Carlos Pena, Evan Longoria, B.J. Upton and Carl Crawford.
Pat Burrell agrees to terms with Rays
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP)—The Tampa Bay Rays added a big bat for the middle of their batting order, agreeing to a $16 million, two-year contract with Pat Burrell.
The 32-year-old spent the past nine seasons with the Philadelphia Phillies, who defeated the Rays in the World Series a little over two months ago.
He hit .250 with 33 homers, 33 doubles and 86 RBIs last season and has averaged 31 homers, 99 RBIs and 103 walks over the past four seasons. A left fielder throughout his career, Burrell is expected to be used mostly as the designated hitter with Tampa Bay.
One of the Rays’ top priorities was to add a right-handed power hitter to a lineup also featuring Carlos Pena, Evan Longoria, B.J. Upton and Carl Crawford.
craven_fiend
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 112 (100%)
[quote name='dopa345']Not a bad signing by the Rays. Shows they are serious about making another run. Good for them and for baseball.[/quote]
Yeah, especially given that its 8 mil per and not 16 mil. Pretty good deal and he may extend his career by moving to DH.
Yeah, especially given that its 8 mil per and not 16 mil. Pretty good deal and he may extend his career by moving to DH.
slickkill77
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 78 (100%)
Cubs signed Milton Bradley to a 3 year $30 million contract pending physical
Ouch. Bad news for the Phils
The Philadelphia Phillies might need to pick up some help for their bullpen after reliever J.C. Romero found out he has been suspended 50 games by Major League Baseball.
Romero failed a drug test, though he denies doing anything illegal. The MLB Players Association had told players that the supplement Romero took was acceptable, ESPN.com's Peter Gammons reports.
"I still cannot see where I did something wrong," Romero told Gammons. "There is nothing that should take away from the rings of my teammates. I didn't cheat. I tried to follow the rules."
Gammons notes that Romero will lose $1.25MM.
The left-handed Romero, 33 in June, was an impact player in the Phillies' bullpen in 2008. He went 4-4 with a 2.75 ERA (1.339 WHIP) in 81 appearances (59.0 innings). The Phillies could possibly explore the market for his replacement.
Ouch. Bad news for the Phils
The Philadelphia Phillies might need to pick up some help for their bullpen after reliever J.C. Romero found out he has been suspended 50 games by Major League Baseball.
Romero failed a drug test, though he denies doing anything illegal. The MLB Players Association had told players that the supplement Romero took was acceptable, ESPN.com's Peter Gammons reports.
"I still cannot see where I did something wrong," Romero told Gammons. "There is nothing that should take away from the rings of my teammates. I didn't cheat. I tried to follow the rules."
Gammons notes that Romero will lose $1.25MM.
The left-handed Romero, 33 in June, was an impact player in the Phillies' bullpen in 2008. He went 4-4 with a 2.75 ERA (1.339 WHIP) in 81 appearances (59.0 innings). The Phillies could possibly explore the market for his replacement.
Personality wise it is burell. But isn't Bradley a better fielder? Supposedly the rays liked Bradley after the interview/meeting. I gave never heard a teammate of Bradley bitch about him and it isn't like the rays couldn't use a fighter. The redsox and yanks both have history of on the field battles with the rays. Bradley puts up good numbers.
[quote name='ryanbph']the rays needed OF help, I don't think heinske/gomez are coming back[/QUOTE]
They already traded for Matt Joyce. Burrell is their full time DH.
Great trade for the Devil Rays, Edwin Jackson sucks. I don't know how they got a young power hitting outfielder for him.
They already traded for Matt Joyce. Burrell is their full time DH.
Great trade for the Devil Rays, Edwin Jackson sucks. I don't know how they got a young power hitting outfielder for him.
integralsmatic
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 68 (100%)
[quote name='ryanbph']What is a better signing? Bradley 3 year 30mill or burell 2 year 16 mil.[/QUOTE]
im going bradley.
The guy is just all around better than burrell and i have tons of respect for burrell. His numbers arent that far off from Mark Texiera but if i dont have a DH, i need defense and thats where bradley excels compared to burrell. bradley now has to deal with a short tempered coach for once in Pinella so his club house attitude may change for the better.
i wonder how long this derek lowe stand off will go on for. no side is budging and the mets havent made an offer to Ollie or Wolf or even Garland yet. i dont want to go in to the season with knight and niese at 4-5. even though i think niese is going to be good.
im going bradley.
The guy is just all around better than burrell and i have tons of respect for burrell. His numbers arent that far off from Mark Texiera but if i dont have a DH, i need defense and thats where bradley excels compared to burrell. bradley now has to deal with a short tempered coach for once in Pinella so his club house attitude may change for the better.
i wonder how long this derek lowe stand off will go on for. no side is budging and the mets havent made an offer to Ollie or Wolf or even Garland yet. i dont want to go in to the season with knight and niese at 4-5. even though i think niese is going to be good.
allegedly the phils may be interested in lowe...
IMO jackson has nasty stuff, is young and still developing and his only issue is control problems which young pitchers will have to deal with. I thought that the tigers ripped off the rays in that trade. I would much rather have a young pitcher who already has 2 full seasons under his belt, has increased the ip count up to 180'sIP last year, and has nasty stuff, then the same age OF, who only has 1 partial season under then belt and hit .250.
IMO jackson has nasty stuff, is young and still developing and his only issue is control problems which young pitchers will have to deal with. I thought that the tigers ripped off the rays in that trade. I would much rather have a young pitcher who already has 2 full seasons under his belt, has increased the ip count up to 180'sIP last year, and has nasty stuff, then the same age OF, who only has 1 partial season under then belt and hit .250.
[quote name='ryanbph']What is a better signing? Bradley 3 year 30mill or burell 2 year 16 mil.[/QUOTE]
I would say Burrell only because of Bradley's injury history. Last season was his first topping over 100 games since 2004. At least Burrell has a pretty good track record of consistent production and durability.
I would say Burrell only because of Bradley's injury history. Last season was his first topping over 100 games since 2004. At least Burrell has a pretty good track record of consistent production and durability.
[quote name='integralsmatic']im going bradley.
The guy is just all around better than burrell and i have tons of respect for burrell. His numbers arent that far off from Mark Texiera but if i dont have a DH, i need defense and thats where bradley excels compared to burrell. bradley now has to deal with a short tempered coach for once in Pinella so his club house attitude may change for the better.
i wonder how long this derek lowe stand off will go on for. no side is budging and the mets havent made an offer to Ollie or Wolf or even Garland yet. i dont want to go in to the season with knight and niese at 4-5. even though i think niese is going to be good.[/QUOTE]
Well supposedly the Mets are not going to change there offer, Minaya said if Lowe does not want to take that offer they will target Perez who is 6 years younger, a lefty, and has the experience of pitching in NY.
I for one would take Perez on a 4 or 5 year deal over Lowe. Lowe is getting up there and Perez has showed signs of being a good pitcher. We all know his problem is consistency but maybe a new pitching coach and manager can help that issue. I would be all for the Mets skipping on Lowe and signing Perez and a fifth starter, Wolf or Garland.
The guy is just all around better than burrell and i have tons of respect for burrell. His numbers arent that far off from Mark Texiera but if i dont have a DH, i need defense and thats where bradley excels compared to burrell. bradley now has to deal with a short tempered coach for once in Pinella so his club house attitude may change for the better.
i wonder how long this derek lowe stand off will go on for. no side is budging and the mets havent made an offer to Ollie or Wolf or even Garland yet. i dont want to go in to the season with knight and niese at 4-5. even though i think niese is going to be good.[/QUOTE]
Well supposedly the Mets are not going to change there offer, Minaya said if Lowe does not want to take that offer they will target Perez who is 6 years younger, a lefty, and has the experience of pitching in NY.
I for one would take Perez on a 4 or 5 year deal over Lowe. Lowe is getting up there and Perez has showed signs of being a good pitcher. We all know his problem is consistency but maybe a new pitching coach and manager can help that issue. I would be all for the Mets skipping on Lowe and signing Perez and a fifth starter, Wolf or Garland.
Man Boras is crazy, does he think any team is going to bite on a Manny contract at 4/100 Million? I think the Dodgers are smart for offering him 2/45 Million. Apparently they even offered 3/60 Million and was turned down. I think that is probably the best he is going to be able to get.
integralsmatic
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 68 (100%)
[quote name='DomLando']Well supposedly the Mets are not going to change there offer, Minaya said if Lowe does not want to take that offer they will target Perez who is 6 years younger, a lefty, and has the experience of pitching in NY.
I for one would take Perez on a 4 or 5 year deal over Lowe. Lowe is getting up there and Perez has showed signs of being a good pitcher. We all know his problem is consistency but maybe a new pitching coach and manager can help that issue. I would be all for the Mets skipping on Lowe and signing Perez and a fifth starter, Wolf or Garland.[/QUOTE]
yeah i see what you are saying...but lowe gives so much more consistency.either way i cant see how we lose. But apparently Ken Davidoff said the mets were also interested in Tim Redding. and an offer is being set up for Randy Wolf. either way we are going to get two SPs but who will it be?
[quote name='ph33r m3']The Dodgers are bidding against themselves really....Manny'sin' over himself if he thinks he's getting anything better than 3/60.[/QUOTE]
yeah agreed. He has to lower that price with the corner OF market looking like the stock market and it doesnt hurt the dodgers since they have other options they can look at .
I for one would take Perez on a 4 or 5 year deal over Lowe. Lowe is getting up there and Perez has showed signs of being a good pitcher. We all know his problem is consistency but maybe a new pitching coach and manager can help that issue. I would be all for the Mets skipping on Lowe and signing Perez and a fifth starter, Wolf or Garland.[/QUOTE]
yeah i see what you are saying...but lowe gives so much more consistency.either way i cant see how we lose. But apparently Ken Davidoff said the mets were also interested in Tim Redding. and an offer is being set up for Randy Wolf. either way we are going to get two SPs but who will it be?
[quote name='ph33r m3']The Dodgers are bidding against themselves really....Manny's
in' over himself if he thinks he's getting anything better than 3/60.[/QUOTE]yeah agreed. He has to lower that price with the corner OF market looking like the stock market and it doesnt hurt the dodgers since they have other options they can look at .
Sox are close to signing Rocco Baldelli and John Smoltz.
Baldelli would be a great 4th outfielder, he'll get his share of at bats with J.D. Drew missing his usual 60 games, and his health is better than previously thought.
Smoltz won't be ready until May at the earliest but they don't need him right away.
In other news, Jason Varitek screwed the pooch by not accepting arbitration. Nobody wants to lose a 1st round pick to sign him for any amount, let alone his asking price. The Sox will happily take that pick if someone pays him.
Baldelli would be a great 4th outfielder, he'll get his share of at bats with J.D. Drew missing his usual 60 games, and his health is better than previously thought.
Smoltz won't be ready until May at the earliest but they don't need him right away.
In other news, Jason Varitek screwed the pooch by not accepting arbitration. Nobody wants to lose a 1st round pick to sign him for any amount, let alone his asking price. The Sox will happily take that pick if someone pays him.
I like both of those signings. Assuming everyone is healthy was smoltz is ready I wonder what they will do with there rotation at the back end. That is a big if though.
I wonder how serious the redsox greg zaun reports are. If the sign zaun I doubt they would take varitek back even if he took a big pay cut.
I wonder how serious the redsox greg zaun reports are. If the sign zaun I doubt they would take varitek back even if he took a big pay cut.
[quote name='integralsmatic']yeah i see what you are saying...but lowe gives so much more consistency.either way i cant see how we lose. But apparently Ken Davidoff said the mets were also interested in Tim Redding. and an offer is being set up for Randy Wolf. either way we are going to get two SPs but who will it be?
yeah agreed. He has to lower that price with the corner OF market looking like the stock market and it doesnt hurt the dodgers since they have other options they can look at .[/QUOTE]
So there are reports that Lowe wants 4 years 64 millions. He is meeting with the Braves today.
I still think I rather have Perez. Boras met with Minaya yesterday and they talked about Lowe, Perez and Manny. But it is being said that the Mets are going to try and get a 4th and 5th starter and probably stop after that without upgrading there offense. They may try and get another relief pitcher and stop there.
If the Mets can get Perez I would go for it. Lowe wants a 4th year and I would rather give a 4-5 year deal to a younger guy. They also made a one year offer to Redding but they are saying he wants 2, which i would not give to him.
They want to make a deal with Wolf but I think they are waiting to see what happens with Lowe and Perez before that.
yeah agreed. He has to lower that price with the corner OF market looking like the stock market and it doesnt hurt the dodgers since they have other options they can look at .[/QUOTE]
So there are reports that Lowe wants 4 years 64 millions. He is meeting with the Braves today.
I still think I rather have Perez. Boras met with Minaya yesterday and they talked about Lowe, Perez and Manny. But it is being said that the Mets are going to try and get a 4th and 5th starter and probably stop after that without upgrading there offense. They may try and get another relief pitcher and stop there.
If the Mets can get Perez I would go for it. Lowe wants a 4th year and I would rather give a 4-5 year deal to a younger guy. They also made a one year offer to Redding but they are saying he wants 2, which i would not give to him.
They want to make a deal with Wolf but I think they are waiting to see what happens with Lowe and Perez before that.
- Status
bread's done