Baseball 2010
 

Yes, I know we aren't even to the new year yet, but the winter meetings are going on right now and already moves are being made that are having a major impact on this coming baseball season.

The Yankees, Diamondbacks and Tigers have agreed on a three-way deal centered around Curtis Granderson.

The Tigers will trade Granderson to the Yankees and Edwin Jackson to the Diamondbacks. The Yankees will send Phil Coke and Austin Jackson to Detroit and Ian Kennedy to Arizona. The Diamondbacks will send Max Scherzer and Daniel Schlereth to the Tigers.

So the Tigers cut a good bit of payroll while gaining some nice prospects. Jackson was the Yankees top prospect last year and is likely headed for Granderson's spot in center field this season. Scherzer had 174 strikeouts in 170 innings last season; he and Verlander are going to be scary. Plus, Coke and Schlereth are nice young arms.

The Yankees replace Damon at the top of their lineup, and the Cabrera-Gardner combo in center field, and at a comparably cheap rate ($25.75 million over the next three years including the $2 million buyout of his 2010 $13 million option).

The Diamondbacks appear to have been pretty well fleeced. Edwin Jackson struggled mightily in the second half last season, and since his overall numbers were pretty good he's going to get a nice raise in arbitration. Kennedy was a guy who the Yankees wouldn't give up for Johan Santana, but is coming off Tommy John surgery.

Lots of rumors as well: Milton Bradley, Kevin Millwood, Dan Uggla. The Nationals already went full-retard and gave Ivan Rodriguez two years and $6 million, along with taking Brian Bruney off the Yankees' hands for that oft-traded man himself, Player to be Named.

This is the kind of thing I love to watch.

I lauged my ass off when I saw the nats deals. Granderson might be ok in NY.. but I'm only concered with what Theo is doing at these meetings. ;)

The Orioles are receiving Kevin Millwood and cash (~$3 million) from the Rangers for Chris Ray.

The Orioles were looking for a veteran pitcher, but didn't want to have to overpay in years and money for one when the team believes they will be in a much better situation next season and beyond. Millwood had a solid year last year, is only signed for another year and costs $9 million and an arm a year off Tommy John surgery. Chris Ray has been one of my favorite Orioles, but he hasn't yet recovered fully from his injury production-wise and was rumored to be a nontender candidate. I wish him the best, and hope that Millwood can bring something to the young pitching the Orioles are developing.

Also, the Astros trade for Matt Lindstrom and the Royals make a Nationals-esque offer of two years for Jason Kendall.

Theo says he's taking his time, but red sox nation wants something to happen now. We don't want another Tex situation.

Apparently, he inquired about Granderson, but the Tigers wanted either Buckholtz or Ellsbury in return so he said no thanks.

Theo needs to secure Jason Bay or Matt Holliday, and then grab a pitcher. I think a certain pitcher moving from Toronto to Boston would work out well ;)

I haven't heard much about Lackey lately, has he signed somewhre? He would fit in well at Boston too.

Theo should be looking at the here and now because while the farm system has great prospects, the really good prospects are at least two years out from major league debuts. Mike Lowell can be moved (with salary support) as well a Jed Lowrie. Lowrie has injury issues and securing Scutaro will hopefully seal the revolving door for a couple years. Papelbon is elligible for arbitration, so they'll end up giving him 4-5 at 10 per.. but word on the street is that Boston is willing to go from 120 million to around 150 million in payroll.

Theo, please get us an outfielder, a starting pitcher, and someone who can replace Papi if he has another sub-par season.

Lowell is going to Texas for Max Ramirez, though Boston is basically eating all of Lowell's salary. I'm stunned they got anything for him even with the money.

And just between you, me and Theo, based on the Sox recent history with shortstops and the fact that you signed Marco frickin' Scuturo, I would stash Lowrie somewhere safe. You're going to need him ;)

The Indians suck!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is all.

Well I knew Boston would have to eat most of the $12 Million of Lowell's salary to move him, and we love Lowell, it's just time for him to move on. We can put Youk at 3rd. I just don't understand why Theo is going after a catcher, unless he's planning on trying to lure someone who needs a catcher.

I know Scuturo isn't the best out there, but he's able to fill in the lead off role if Ellsbury is out and Lowrie for such a young age just can't seem to stay healthy at all. I'll admit, I don't know much about Scuturo's injury history.. I just hope he plugs the hole.

You have no catcher that's why. Varitek is a part time catcher at best and if you are lucky plus, if the Red Sox Nation plans to keep Martinez healthy and productive you pretty much have to limit his time at catcher, he's a first baseman these days, maybe at most play him at catcher 25%, but that will whittle away productivity in years to come. At catcher, you'll have a good to very strong Martinez for maybe a year, a year and a half at most, then he's done and if you do sign him long term as rumored it'll be at a salary no one will want to eat. At first base, you have a very good to Manny like productive Martinez for 5 years maybe more.

Moving Lowell to make first open for Martinez makes sense. The only true holes you have then are at catcher and shortstop.

Scutaro is a decent pick up but at 34 and his range dropping fast you have to ask is he just a gap stop at the position. Lowrie isn't the answer at short either, he's damaged goods, once a team shows that they have lost confidence in a player... his time there goes downhill. Physically he may eventually be healthy enough to play everyday, mentally... as long as he is in Boston I wouldn't bank on it.

As a DBacks fan I'm on the fence. Dealing Scherzer means the DBacks either viewed him as an injury risk, a reliever, or both. There is no doubt the kid has great stuff but he throws way too many pitches and lacks a third pitch. It is tough for him to make it out of the 5th inning each time out. He also has a very violent throwing motion with a head jerk. He's young and may get the third pitch but that could take a few years to develop.

For the next two years, Edwin Jackson is the better pitcher. He benefits by switching leagues where Scherzer takes quite a hit by moving to the AL.

Schlereth is a good reliever, but he's a reliever. Ian Kennedy looks good on paper. He could be their 4th or 5th starter next season.

Apparently, the Mets are in the bidding for Jason Bay.

Rangers still deciding on Lowell..

Boston is considering making a play for Beltre. It's an upgrade in defense. Bay was offered 4 years 60 million by the Mets. Same offer he rejected from Boston. He's either waiting on the Yankees to make a huge offer, or he wants more an added year from Boston.

Theo is still looking at Matt Holliday.. don't really know if I want him in Boston though. They're also looking at Nick Johnson and Adam LaRoche. Nick Johnson would give nice flexibility on the corners..

Yankees don't need or want jason bay yankees are pretty much set at position players they most likly going to go after a number 3 pitcher to put between andy and burnett maybe a lackey and they most def going to keep a eye on doc make sure that broken down nation don't make a run at him

They don't have a left fielder or DH at the moment. A Cabrera/Gardner platoon might have been serviceable in center field, but not in left.

Even the Yankees aren't going to give a giant contract to a guy who would be their number-three starter.

Um...would you mind re-writing this last part?

Jay.. do you know your team at all?? You think they'd rather have Damon over Bay?? Really? Damon may be ok on the bases, but besides the fact that 90 year old grandmothers can throw better than him and his range in the field has decreased to high school level, there's just no way the skanks would feel like offering Damon the 4 years at $13mil/per when they can offer a younger Bay 5/65-70per and be better off. There's no way they pay the money that Lackey wants to sit at #3 or 4.

Anyway, I don't care about what the skanks do.. I just want to know what the fuck Theo is doing. I used to think this kid was smart, but now he reeks of desperation with deals he's made lately. Add to that he's been beaten by a mere $5 million by another team and reports are that Bay won't be back to Boston, and I just don't know what to think of him. He could step to $70mil/5 years and lock him up and trade him after 4 years if he only wants a 4 year contract. Although, I have a feeling, that if Bay had liked Boston, he would have already signed. There is just something he doesn't like.. have fun in Seattle losing day in and day out.

Holliday is younger than Bay.. why not go ahead and offer him something?? Offer Lackey something while you're at it. The Rangers trade looks like it will be done this week sometime, but Boston needs more than that. They need a big bat and another starting pitcher. We have no idea how Dice-K or Buckholtz are going to perform for a whole season. If Beckett has injuries again, Boston is sunk.

I'm all for keeping the team young and fresh and using the farm talent, but damn, the division has become one where you have to have some good experience and some real pop to compete. Boston is seriously lacking in power.

Oh, I get it now! Doc HALLIDAY. Don't know why that didn't register at first :lol:

Never mind, Jay :)

As a Jays fan I am gutted to see that Halladay is leaving. I appreciate how he has pitched and will remain a fan of his wherever he goes but if he ends up in bos/ny then a little piece of me inside will die. but i will still hope he wins a ring....until we get finished rebuilding then game on! still great player....

I have no idea why the Yankees are wasting there time with Damon, he is brutal in the field and his bat is only getting worse. I would go after bay over holliday, lets face it he was brutal in the AL, at least go bay he is proved he can hit AL pitching.

All you had to do was ask theo went and got you lackey boston officially has the best 1 thru 4 pitching rotation

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------

The dh is going to be rotated between arod posada jeter damon
By aquiring granderson which is a upgrade over gardner and cabrera so if you resign damon you have five outfielders now why will you go after bay. Don't get me wrong bay will be a upgrade at left but then you be lookiing for playiing time for gardner damon and cabrera. If you won the world series with what you have why tinker with it. So all the yankees need is to find that # 3 or 4 pitcher cause the chamberlin project was a bust

haha, yup - ask and ye shall receive!

now if they can just get Holiday to sign, they will be set

and Halladay goes to the Phillies - looks like they will be in the world series again next year, assuming no crazy injuries

Well, damn. 5 years $85 million.. not a bad contract at all. I like the way Lackey attacks hitters and really wants to go after people. I just hope he can adjust to Fenway.

They're in talks to secure Mike Cameron, to share time with Jeremy Hermida in left.. I guess that shows that Holliday and Bay are going elsewhere this season. They've made an offer to Chapman (young cuban whom is the hottest foreign player) but I'm not so sure he's a good move.. he has command issues.. and as much as I hate to say it, they appear to be setting up to move Beckett elsewhere next year or the year after..

Ok, pitching taking care of, Theo give us a big bat now.

the halladay deal was a upgrade but cliff lee would have been just as dominant. now if they were able to keep cliff lee and add halladay that would have been more of a bnlockbuster move to me

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

all philly did was trade one ace for another. they wont be winning any world series unless hamels gets right

agreed, I spoke too soon, before thinking it through

adding Halladay and keeping Lee might have been enough to win the WS, but I'm still not sure there is anybody that can dethrone them from the NL championship just yet (again, assuming no major injuries)

The phils thought about keeping both, but in the end, they didn't want a $160 million payroll. They have serious issues in the rear rotation that they'll have to address if they're gonna win another series.. just like Boston.

[quote=bazkitcase5;2739589]agreed, I spoke too soon, before thinking it through

adding Halladay and keeping Lee might have been enough to win the WS, but I'm still not sure there is anybody that can dethrone them from the NL championship just yet (again, assuming no major injuries)[/QUOTE


They are definitly the team to beat in the NL. But they have to get hamels back as he was in 2008 and get there bullpin fixed they blew way to many saves in there 2009 run.

---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------

That's the difference between every major league team in baseball and the yanks, we are ready to spend the extra cash to reasure us another notch on the belt. As for boston I think there rotation is set nobody has as much depth in starting pitching as they do. All they need is a big bat in left field and maybe they can get to th second round in the playoff. Off course the yanks will shut them down when they reach it.

It's always funny how skank fans come out of the woodwork when their team wins the series again and starts spouting this world beater crap.

Anyway, the Cards are set to pay Holliday 8years/16mil per to keep him. Nobody is going to match that.

Bay will probably end up in Seattle. Seattle will have Hernandez, Lee and Bay.. not bad.

Just keeping you redsox fans on ya toes. If and when seattle get bay that al west will be up for graps between the angels and mariners. Only problem is they won't be able to keep both lee and hernandes.

And the flaws of the current baseball salary system continue. It is fucking ridiculous that teams can spend two times the average of the rest of the league's payroll.

dont cry, its not noboby fault your teams owner is a cheap ass. in MLB there is a thing called revenue sharing, so if your owner decides to pocket the cash instead of reinvesting it back into the team like other team do (Yankees, redsox, etc) that is soley on them

See it's attitudes like that, that are destroying the game. 10 years ago the Jake sold out every game for 5 years and the Indians still truly couldn't compete because NY, Boston and the big markets even in bad years dwarf everyone else in sales.

Mid and small markets can only demand so much a ticket. The big markets can practically name their price because their base is bigger. The advertisers are more apt to advertise where more people will see their name, national broadcasts are more apt to show games where they feel they will get the better ratings. (You always hear almost every year a small market gets close to the playoffs how networks fear ratings will tank.)

Now,you take into consideration, every owner wants to make money and is not going to spend millions upon millions to lose money. Teams are put on very thin lines. When a team like the Cubs was getting ready to file bankruptcy, when the commish, himself a few years ago told us there were several teams that were close to not making payroll, that tells you the money isn't there in some cities. Owners own teams to make money not lose it. Small/Mi market team owners usually cannot justify paying 1 player $10 million/year when the rest of the team will pretty much be rookies and low level players. Look what signing A-Rod did to Texas, it destroyed the fan base for years because the team wasn't able to pay other players enough to have a competitive team out there.

So, now you have 3 choices.... let teams go bankrupt and move them (in which case you hope a fan base is there) but you disgruntle fans in the city you move from and economically hurt that city plus piss of politicians who can start looking at that anti-trust exemption..... You "carry" those teams and so a portion of every dollar that team gets goes back to MLB thus in the end they can't spend money on payroll because they have loans they have to pay.... OR you devise a true revenue sharing program and salary cap and let every city have a chance again. You treat the teams as equals, even the money out and instead of being entities among themselves they become subsidiaries (like NFL/NBA teams... etc). This would allow owners to make money, allow GM's to truly go out and do the work they can to put out the best product and so on.

Now, Selig who was a small market owner to a horrific team (Milwaukee) that had no base to speak of, became Commish and swore to even the playing field. All of a sudden Milwaukee after years of not getting a stadium bill passed gets one passed, money flows in and Selig shuts up about changing the system. hmmmmm

Then we have to look at the players. If you're Roy Halladay, and you have Boston/NY, Seattle, Oakland and Cincy offering basically the same moeny... most likely you will go to Boston/NY, because more fan base = more advertising = more chances to command bigger dollars to endorse products = more money playing in NYC/Boston/LA. So Mid and Small Market teams end up having to offer more money. Then the agents come in and they want to show other clients they can get every penny they can.... then the MLBPA tells players you need to go where there is more money so that the guys coming up will make more... then you have the NIKE/PEPSI/ etc telling the player they'll pay more if he goes to a bigger market where more people will see him using their products and know his name.

But the player's/ agent/ advertising is the common thread in all sports. Lebron will be offered much more in Cleveland than anywhere else ( Larry Bird Exception), but he'll make more in NY/Chicago/LA because NIKE will pay him more because he'll be seen more.

Sports isn't about guys out there to win for a city, to bring pride and championships to the fans anymore. It's all about bottom lines. Bottom line, especially in MLB is Big Markets = Big $$$$$$ and not just from the teams.

Until MLB can get some kind of workable cap and revenue sharing that helps the Small and Mid markets, MLB will always have 3 maybe 4 teams that have everybody and everyone else basically a farm team, raising players up to the majors, getting them experienced and then shipping them out to the big markets. Thus a team like Tampa/Cleveland/Cincy/KC/Det/Pitt/Oak may be competitive and damned good for a year or 2 but then fall back into mediocrity when they can't afford the players they brought up. That doesn't help keep a fan base. The only thing that keeps a fan base is being able to keep your star players and be competitive year in and year out. Give the fans hope every year.

Oh, so you're one of THOSE Yankee fans.

Message to consider you opinions on baseball completely irrelevant received loud and clear.

Now for something completely different...

In about a twelve-hour period, the Orioles made two signings, Mike Gonzalez (Nice) and Garrett Atkins (Meh), and reports came out that the team is making an offer for Matt Holliday and made a run at Adrian Gonzalez at the winter meetings. Suddenly, I'm excited :lol:

man.. if the O's are making an offer for Holliday, then that's their entire payroll. Boras wants 22 mil per season for him. The only team that's come close is St. Louis and they're willing to go 16-18 mil per season.

It's going to take a ton to get Adrian Gonzalez, in fact, Boston is rumored to be looking at grabbing him (if he isn't snagged) right before spring training, but they'll have to give up Buckholtz to do it. What do the O's have that would lure the Padre's into giving up Gonzalez?

I never understood the hatred towards the baseball revenue issue with the yanks and beantown spending more than everyone else. I say good for them, they want to win and invest in the teams. And this is coming for someone who roots for the jays. I wish our owners would spend the money bos/ny does.

I still hate them with a passion but I am jealous of the resources and how they invest them. It also helps to be owned by a someone that cares too. Look at the teams that do well or at least make a lot of money and it seems it is the owners that care. I can't begrudge that.

I use to watch hockey until they put this revenue cap in place. It ruins the good verus evil argument when you have these rich teams battling the small market teams. it is more exciting, and the chance for a dream season by some poor team. it is also much more compelling than watching 25 teams that all spend the same and dynasties are harder to maintain.

I effing hate ny/bos but it would be boring if we all spend the same.

The Halladay trade was nice to see it finally come to an end. I am going to miss watching him on tv all summer, I really hope these prospects turn out. Seeing him in the phillies colours made me feel like shit.

But they don't have that money.

The Yankees are really on their own plane when it comes to the money they bring in. The Red Sox are next, a little further back, but still well beyond every other team. Then comes the tier with the Mets, Cubs and Dodgers, almost exponentially less, and it goes down more and more from there.

It isn't that they have more money to spend than other teams. It's that they have more money to spend than many teams COMBINED. It is blatantly unfair, especially considering the only reason the Yankees can even make that money is by competing with all of the other teams.

This isn't even money from the owner; this is money they get essentially as their birthright as the more-successful team in the largest market in the country. To suggest that the system is nothing short of embarrassingly unfair, let alone suggest what you do about an owner not shoveling all of their money into the fireplace to fail at fighting what other teams get for free, is to have a very poor view of the subject.

I'm not going to even attempt to say it isn't fair, and realistically, I think the only reason Boston spends so much is because they feel they have to spend that much in order to be like the skanks. They want to dethrone them so badly every season that they just have to spend the money, that and when a player says they're in the free agency market, they know if they are good enough for Boston, they're probably good enough for NY and NY isn't that far away..

how to fix it? I have no idea.

There's a very simple way of fixing the problem... everything with an MLB label or MLB approved (Tickets, ALL TV revenue, merchandise, radio, ad revenue, etc) goes into a pot and gets evenly distributed. You put a hard salary cap on the teams with the only exceptions being similar to the NBA's "Bird Exemption" or the NFL's "Franchise Player" exemption.

The only teams that will lobby against this would be the Yankees and maybe the Bosox. The MLBPA of course will fight it, probably strike but if they do not do this teams are going to go bankrupt, owners will sell for losses (lowering the value of teams not only in MLB but in all sports), teams will move and MLB will probably have Congress studying and threatening to revoke their coveted anti-trust exemption.

People may argue and say that's gloom and doom but right now I have a feeling if the books were made public we'd see MLB propping up several teams keeping them alive.

I agree with the last few posts - the yankees are ruining baseball for all non yankee fans

I love baseball... always have... but seems these last few years its pointless to cheer for my team, its cheer for any team that is playing against the yankees

if the yankees win the world series, *cough* - then the season is a loss

djtestudo said it best, and there is nothing any lower level team can do about it - they can farm there players, but its only a matter of time until they get really good and become a free agent, then bail to a higher paying team - the lower market teams never last more than a few years at a time before seemingly starting over

The one thing your all forgetting is most of your teams are owned by billionaires who don't give a fuck if the team wins, only care about the profits. Usually the difference between a successful team and a franchise in ruin is who owns the team. For example the toronto maple leafs in hockey are owned by a corporation who knows that no matter what product they put out there the building will sell out. No chance of winning until you have someone who owns the team and cares. Sure the stars can align and you can get lucky like Rays did a couple of years ago.

I know Mark Cuban is a businessman first and fan second but i bet if you asked him if he could earn 50 million profit this year with his mavericks or only 1 million and win a championship he would take the title in a heart beat.

Face the facts, more of the owners don't care if the team wins. Sure some do care and are willing to invest in the teams. The money is there for teams to invest in revenue sharing but most just pocket it. I believe there are penalties if they don't use the money on baseball operations though.

I wish the fucktards that own my jays would put more money into the team but they don't care. That makes me hate the them, but i am jealous that the yanks are willing to spend the cash. In the 90's the jays has the highest payroll in baseball, why can't they do that now for example.

But this has nothing to do with the argument. The Yankees and Red Sox have the kind of income that allows for payroll coverage AND giant profits without the owners having to dip into their personal fortunes beyond the costs of purchasing the franchise. You really think that compares to other owners having to do just that in order to consider competing?

It really sounds like you are just complaining about your team instead of really looking at the problems within the system.

EDIT: Pan just said it MUCH better right below...

The owners are billionaires because they don't waste money. Let's say you own the Jays. Now, you can open your own personal wallet and throw millions to buy a team. First, you find you have to offer more to players than NY or Boston because of endorsements and other monies that they would make in those cities. Secondly, you have to convert to US Dollars so that's more.

Let's say you do that. You don't care how much it costs. So you spend $150 Million. Your team only brings in $100 million even though you sold out every game and won the World Series. So, you personally lose $50 million. Do that for a few years and watch what happens. Now, you could be like Guizenga (spelling) who owned the Marlins and bought the WS in '97. Win and get the F out before the team falls apart or you can continue to try to win but every year lose $50 million and if those players don't perform and have a bad year or the fans can't afford tickets and the stadium doesn't fill... you lose even more.

So how many years are you willing to lose $50 million of your own money? And if you win and sell everyone off... well look at Miami, again Guizenga did that and Florida has never recovered those lost fans and can't field a competitive team.
Your example here is that it's now who runs the teams. How good are the GM's, the scouts, etc. Some owners will take advantage of the cap and still field horrendous teams so they can make more profit (not wise because it won't last long), or they just have bad people running the team. It's not quite like baseball where they can go out and spend and get anyone they want.

First, the NBA has a sal cap so Cuban knows the most he can possibly lose in any given year. Secondly, if Cuban owned the Rangers or Astros, I can almost guarantee if he personally lost even $10 million his first year in ownership and saw that even if he went out and bought better players he'd lose that and possibly more he'd sell in a heartbeat. Owners do not own to lose money.... even billionaires.

Yes, in every sport there are owners that use the system, to make as much as they can and don't care what kind of team they field. Those owners usually end up with franchises worth much less than they bought them for and those are just fools who are not good business people.

In the 90's times were different. Players weren't as expensive as they are now and teams like the Indians were tapping new income sources (stadiums, ads, cable contracts, etc) Those new sources aren't there. 10-20 years ago very very few players made or commanded $10 million. Now that's a price that is becoming a norm. Yet, teams revenues aren't going up. Salaries go up, income reaches it's plateau..... thus, you can't keep up.

yeah yeah yeah and the yankees spend there money to insure they dont get de-throned by boston sure they spend cause its more important to win the world series than to make a profit to both owners

---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------

listen that is just to bad if the owner of the marlins dont want to spend to put out there the best team possible . as for a cap are you nuts all that does is riun a sport just look at the NBA. so let me get this strait you want to pay your hard earned money so that a owner who happens to be a billionair can pocket all of the income while decreasing the players salary (mind you the player the guy out there actually playing the game) so that the fat cat can keep the max profit

The first paragraph proves you are reading nothing in this thread by ignoring that the Yankees make a gigantic profit despite how much they spend. The second just adds more proof.

jaymoney:

Do you know anything about how much revenue comes in to the small market teams? I'm guessing 'no'

Maybe you should re read the post the first paragraph was for gluccilvr claim that boston only spends to beat the yankees and the second paragraph clearly states that a cap will ruin the sport. I don't see where anything in them proved wat ever you were tring to say. And if I'm not mistaken all these poor small market teams get a check from all the big market team esspeacily from the yankees and boston and if that team choose to pocket the cash that's to bad for there fan base. And I don't. Care what market you re in if you put a a great team team with superstars the fans will pay to see them play and win. Example the yankees sellout evey venue the visit. Your fans come out to see the star studded yankees instead of that minor league team some owners put out there

---------- Post added at 07:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------

Let me guess you do

First off they are in a business so most teams will post a profit I imagin there in this business to make money and if they can t then that's a poorly run business. And if they don't well poor rich guy

The yankees have report loss and still invest to make the team better now granted they have a market that granties money but what they have to Down grade to make every one happy. I'm pretty sure that everyone here tring to slam them team would spend as much as they do to get a star no body would be complaining

1) How big is that check each team gets?

2) How much do the Yankees make from YES and other media not covered by MLB rules that is NOT reported as part of their income and allows them to claim a loss on their ticket/concession/small cut of national MLB media income?

I get what you are saying but is that the yankees fault that they make money to me that sounds like a jealous rant. And I get that most teams can't spend like the yankees but all teams can reach the 100 million dollar salary . But how many stay under that how teams are 40 million to 80 million dollar payroll. Yeah the yanks are in class of there own but they also went 9 years with out winning a world series and mis the playoff so its not like having the highest payroll assures you ring. Only advantage the yanks have is they can afford to make mistakes

---------- Post added at 07:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 PM ----------

To ans your question the check starts at 35 million and works it way down all I know is that the teams with the less revenue get about 35 million for examble the marlins get the max work your way down from there

---------- Post added at 07:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------

To ans your question the check starts at 35 million and works it way down all I know is that the teams with the less revenue get about 35 million for examble the marlins get the max work your way down from there

Where are you getting that information on the check?

How does the MLB luxury tax work? - Yahoo! Answers

This season, the Yankees had a $201.5 million payroll. They would be taxed 40% on every dollar over $162 million.

$201.5 million
- 162 million
$39.5 million

40% of $39.5 million is $15.8 million.

They were the only team over the threshold in 2009, 2008 AND 2007. So how does each team receive $35 million in revenue sharing?

You might mean the revenue from all national media rights, but all teams, including the Yankees, get a cut of that.

I also am curious how you KNOW every team CAN make a $100 million payroll. Especially when under what you suggest owners have to spend their own fortunes to cover expenses, and even billionaires would run low on cash at some point.

Honestly, no one truly knows, or can know whether an owner is or isn't pocketing money or spending it out of their own cash. MLB teams are not required to open their books to the public; anything that is made public has been throughly cooked to say whatever MLB wants them to say.

(As an aside, a little trivia to the members at-large: there is one team in the four major American sports leagues that has to release their financial information publicly every year. Can anyone say which team and why?)

ok let's look at the Indians.... 1,766,242 in attendance this past year. Average ticket price 22.12. that comes to 39,069,273.04 made this season in tickets (let's say they get all of that.. even tho they don't because they pay the visiting team a percentage of the gate). Now the radio and tv bring in reportedly around 10 million, concessions may bring in around 25 million, and MLB revenue sharing let's give them another 25 mill to make it easy for the math.

So let's say they make $100 million. Now, they have to pay for the motels, airfare, food expenses for the team, the front office, trainers, coaches, the manager, scouts, minor league team salaries, advertising, stadium lease, utilities, and miscellaneous items like equipment, their Spring Training, signing the draftees and so on.

Now, keep in mind the more you spend on scouts and your minors the better players you produce so that ain't cheap. Hotels and travel... you need to treat these players like royalty so chartered planes and 1st class hotels.

Let's say that costs them $15 million all together. So that leaves you roughly 85 million to pay 24 players (or roughly 3.5 million per player). You pay someone 15 million a year and that's 2 minor leaguers at close to minimum you have to play and if you pay a couple 8-10 million there's more minor leaguers you have. Then you hope the players you are paying those salaries to actually perform and make the team competitive so that attendance can go up, concessions can go up and thus revenue comes in. If they don't perform and/or attendance doesn't increase then you are in serious trouble.

Now, let's say they can sell out Every game 48,000 @ 22.12/ticket that increases your income to 86 million in attendance + concessions you reach the 100 million mark then the other 35 million... let's say you make 150 million but you have to maintain a winning team to keep that. That means more spent in salaries. 150mill/24 players = 6.25 million per player. But the marquee players command more to play in Cleveland than they will in NY/Boston... so you may spend 25 million on a CC but that's 4 player's salaries so then you face having to play 3 minor leaguers around minimum. That's hardly being able to field a competitive team.

That's small market. Plus you add in a bad economy so people can't spend that much for games they have to cut their spending on concessions and souvenirs... there's no way you can keep up.

That's why teams are going broke. They can't afford to compete and fans don't nor can't spend money to go to a stadium where the team doesn't have a chance... so attendance goes down... income goes down, salaries have to go down....and the teams downward spiral speeds up.

So some of these teams fielding big money players at 4-5 positions are walking thin lines. It's easy to see how there can be quite a few teams close to total bankruptcy and having an inability to make payroll.

That's baseball 101, Jaymoney. Every team faces that except the Yankees and Boston. Philly has a good run right now, but even they have their limits. Do you really believe they wanted to get rid of Cliff Lee? Hell no, that would have been arguably the best 1-2 combo in baseball since Maddux/Glavine. The Phils just could not afford that and keep their offense and defensive players. And you need offense/defense to draw in fans and compete. Enough offense to guarantee runs will be scored and a strong defense to keep errors down and help the pitching look good.

I believe, we're going to start seeing more players moved every year from city to city than in the past. This will not be good for baseball.

But, let as you say the fat cat owners lose money year after year after year... even tho they can't afford to field a competitive team, in your opinion, they are just being cheap. How, long would you want to lose millions? How many years are you going to chase bad money with good?

MLB last year transferred about $400M in revenue sharing and luxury tax, and the Indians received more than $20M while the Pirates -- "despite their beautiful, eight-year-old, taxpayer-funded stadium" -- received more than $40M. thats of the top of my head

all MLB teams received $35M from the league's "central fund, which includes revenue from licensing, properties, national TV and advanced media." Thus, the Indians prior to this season had about $55M in revenue and an $81M opening-day payroll, a deficit of just $25M "before they sold one ticket. In addition, all MLB teams received $35M from the league's "central fund, which includes revenue from licensing, properties, national TV and advanced media."

The Pirates had earned $75M and had a $48M payroll, a profit of about $27M before ticket sales.

Indians and Pirates owners are "not willing to spend what it takes to be competitive." They instead are collecting "all that revenue-sharing and central fund dough and claim they're losing money, meaning they must trade away their best players to 'secure the future'

---------- Post added at 02:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 AM ----------

yet the yankees are the evil empire if so then what will you label the indians and pirates (THE FAT CATS)

---------- Post added at 02:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 AM ----------

thats base ball 101 face the facts PAN dont give me fantasy numbers look it up

I think if you look at the percentage of ticket sales that goes to MLB and the visiting team it equals about what I gave them. I gave them 100% of ticket sales, when in reality it's about 60-65%. Last I heard, visiting teams got like 25% of the gate and MLB got 10%. Also, I was very generous in my concession sales (because a percentage goes to the stadium and the company licensed to run the concessions). Same with media revenue, a portion of the local revenue goes to MLB.

I'll stand by my numbers. Because I even showed what they have for payroll when they bring in $150 million.

You totally ignored their OTHER expenses. Payroll is probably 75% (and that's generous) because along with all the ones I listed in my past post, there is still the loan to the bank the owner has to pay, taxes, insurance on the players and so on.

And if you watch MLB when teams are for sale, it's not like 20 years ago or even 10, where you could have many groups trying to buy.... very few are willing to buy a team these days. Why? If there is such a great profit to be made, as you want to believe, would someone not want to buy? Even cities are backing away from trying to get teams.

BTW DJ the team needing to show its books are the Packers because they are city owned and non profit, I believe.

I think your guess has been confirmed.

jaymoney, you're chosing to ignore some very important numbers. Pan's done a pretty good job of laying some of those out for you, and I'll just add there there are more, like front office salaries, facilities rental, insurance on the whole operation (including on star players, coverage for equipment and buildings and liability), legal fees, equipment rental, advertising and medical costs. Every single team has those costs, and my best guess is that just the ones I've listed run close to $10M.

My wife and kids are very friendly with the in house counsel for the Cubs (they live in our neighborhood). I'll probably be at their house on New Year's Day, and I think I may print out this thread for him and get his opinion. He's the kind of guy that will love something like this.

oh.. well if you're gonna show him this thread..

FUCK THE CUBS. YOU'LL NEVER WIN!

Where are those quotes from? Did you make them up or do you have a source?

Considering both myself and Pan did the math and you are just throwing out random numbers without citation, why should they be valid? You need to show us where they came from, since right now it looks impossible for both of ours to be accurate.

And Pan, you are correct. It's actually that they are a public corporation with stockholders (mostly the fanbase in Wisconsin), but it means that they have to comply with the same laws as any other publicly-owned business.

2009 attendance figures

MLB Attendance - Major League Baseball Attendance - ESPN

http://teammarketing.com.ismmedia.co...20FCI%2009.pdf

2009 average ticket price, concession prices and how mush a family of 4 would spend on average, but doesn't include Dollar dog night, dollar Pepsi nights, (which are promotions like fireworks which are again another expense). Let's say the FCI is right. So we divide attendance by 4 multiply that number by the FCI and we still get the Indians making before ANY OTHER expense 80 Million at the gate.

Let's say MLB doubles that and they made 160 million before ANY OTHER expense. With 24 players on the team they have 6.6 mill to spend on players... AGAIN before any other expense is taken out.

Jaymoney man, show me where you get your info.

the source is bill madden. and the math ya did is bogus cause ya guessed the numbers sorry that wont do.

and the sharing of the ticket sales at the gates cancel it self out becuase they make that money back when they are the visiting team so its pointless to even mention it in fact A small market team benefits from that system. im pretty sure when the indians visit fenway or yankee stadium the 25% they rececieve is lot bigger then the one they give. and in pans math he didn't add what the league gives which is 35 million to all teams apart from the luxury tax. from 2007 - present 27 out of the 30 teams reported profits thats fucking great if u ask me oh and one of the teams that reported a loss was yankees. but i probly made that up too.

and that ten percent the league takes is what goes to fund the 400 million dollar pot they use to help the FAT CATS.

and as far as selling a team if they were so desprate to sell an the buyers are so scarce why was Mark Cuban denied?

Correct me if im wrong but BaseBall is the most profitable sport at the moment.

---------- Post added at 01:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 PM ----------

The packers are own by the city?

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------

The Business Of Baseball - Forbes.com
Who profits from revenue sharing? - SFGate.com

And where exactly are your numbers? The attendance figures, local revenue, etc? Hell, I even brought in the FCI. But where are your numbers?

I was probably generous with my figures. I did give revenue sharing.

The sole reason the Yankess "lost" money or showed a loss is because of their new stadium. By showing a "Loss", they get breaks on the revenue sharing and tax cap because of it.

Well, if the teams are all financially sound, why would they need that fund?

Because MLB like the NFL want quiet owners that do not draw major press scrutiny. Cuban is a jerk, a showman and a publicity fuck. MLB doesn't want that as an owner. I don't blame them. Plus, he may not have had the funding, he may not have wanted to show his net worth... there are many, many factors besides being able to buy a team that figure into MLB. The wrong owner may affect their Anti-trust, may make a mockery of the game. The last "Cubanesque" owners they had were Charlie Finley and Ted Turner. Finley was quite possibly one of the worst owners ever. Ted Turner made his team a mockery until MLB told him to shut up or lose the franchise (much like they did to Marge Schott). The only thing that saved his ass was merging with Time/Warner.

Cuban is a joke. I don't see any MLB owners doing WWE in the near future.

They also play the most games. Per event, NASCAR and the NFL have far more attendance. By merchandise sales, the NFL out ranks everyone but the Yankees. NASCAR dwarfs every MLB team in merchandise sales except for the Yankees. So, no I seriously doubt MLB is the most profitable.

But as for net worth every NFL team is worth more than every MLB team except the Yankees. The NFL and NBA are more profitable per team for the owner than MLB. That right there should say something about salary caps.

The NFL was a floundering fish and was no where near MLB popularity until the NFL put in a true sal cap and revenue sharing program.

http://www.plunkettresearch.com/Indu...3/Default.aspx

The NFL plays 10x's fewer games and has 250+ million more in operating funds.

The average value of an NFL team is 1 billion dollars... the average value of an MLB team is 482 million and the NBA is fast catching up.

You take out the Yankees value and MLB probably falls under the NBA.

MLB is hurting, they are bleeding badly. To argue that these owners are making millions while the commissioner tells us there are a few struggling to just make payroll and that MLB has to prop some of them up and give emergency funding to is just out in left field.

http://www.plunkettresearch.com/Indu...3/Default.aspx

So you saying that baseball owners don't make money even though 27 out of 30 reported a profit
That's what you tring to say

Uh, no I didn't. I linked where I got the luxury tax thresholds from, and I got the payroll numbers here, here and here.

You still haven't linked your source. You say they came from "Bill Madden"; well, in a column? Radio/TV interview? Other source?

Where is the 10% coming from?

Are those things on the bottom supposed to be links?

You really aren't helping your argument at all here.

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

Ok, I'm saying you're making everything up now until you provide your sources like others have. And "I got them from Bill Madden" doesn't count.

Show me a link that says that 27 teams showed profit. I'm sure some did. That's what you do in business, hopefully, is make profit. But I have a feeling these profits you talk of do not show the loans the owners have to pay.

Now, I will not disagree there are a few teams that when you add their attendance and the figures like I did for the Indians, the owners pocketed quite a nice sum. That may be one or 2. The rest are probably showing a profit that would not pay a premier player's salary. Plus, as the team spirals downward, attendance drops to where last year's profit has to be put into this year's operating funds. (Money for a rainy day, so to speak.)

If you show me a link where every one of these 27 teams made more than 10 million in profit, I'll reconsider my stance.

I used to believe it was owners not wanting to eat into their profits, but then I started to look at the numbers and did the math and most team (especially small market) have very little wiggle room and can't afford 100 million dollar salaries.

So, yes, I guess until you show me a link, I am saying MLB owners in small and some mid markets show minimal profit at best and that while 1 or 2 may field cheap ass teams to make money, the vast majority field what they can afford. Unfortunately, fielding what they can afford keeps them from truly fielding competitive teams year in and year out.

I forget you guys anint from NY. bill madden is a sports writer here in the city. like i said do the research google yahoo what ever type bill madden and luxury tax and the colum will appear dont act like you dont know how and i imganine if it says .com its a website you can go visit

Wow, what an incredibly lazy response. If you want to convince people, you need to actually do the work to do so. Expecting anyone else to do it for you basically sends the message that you don't believe in what you're saying.

Which means that I, for one, pretty much reject your argument out of hand.

yeah yeah yeah i told him where to look. i copied and pasted some quotes from the article so read all the threads before you have something to say

---------- Post added at 09:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 PM ----------

Forbes Magazine has released it’s annual report on the baseball business.

The Reds’ operating income for 2008 was $17 million dollars, which was 15th in baseball for last season.

The Florida Marlins led baseball with profits of $43 million and the Washington Nationals were second with $42.6 million. The Detroit Tigers lost $26.3 million and the Yankees lost $3.7 million. They were the only two teams to lose money for 2008.

As for the value of the teams, the Yankees are still first, with a value of $1.5 billion, followed by the Mets at $912 million and the Red Sox. The Reds’ franchise was valued at 25th in baseball, at $342 million. The most profitable team in baseball last year, the Marlins, had the lowest team value at $277 million.

The Reds’ team increased in value by 2% in 2008; MLB overall increased by 1%. As for debt to value ratio, the Reds have a debt/value ratio of 12%, which is 6th lowest in baseball. The Yankees debt/value ratio is 95%, including their new stadium debt. The three teams whose value increased the most last year were the Yankees, the Mets, and the Rays. They all had double digit growth.

The Reds team can be found here. Robert Castellini purchased the team for $270 million in 2006 and the team is now worth $342 million. The highest Reds operating income for a season was $23 million in 2005 and they made $22 million in 2007. They’ve dropped the last two seasons as player expenses have risen. Player expenses were $93 million for 2008 (the Forbes charts have different years listed than the story).

Forbes does say the Reds risk their team value declining in 2009 due to a big push by the team to increase their premium seating revenue during the recession. The story says the Reds made a big push for big ticket sales, which can’t be supported by their sponsorship and television revenue if the tickets aren’t purchased.


Forbes Magazine Baseball Report | Redleg Nation

MLB has not released the 2009 numbers now of course there profits went down this years as for the country being broke

---------- Post added at 09:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 PM ----------

profit is profit be $1 OR 100 MILLION DOLLARS POINT IS THEY MAKE MONEY so stop with pity for these FAT CATS. if you want to win invest .
spend money to make money scare money lets you watch october baseball from your couch

You're right I googled "Bill Madden" and found 827,000 matches. Now exactly which match am I supposed to go to?

Very easy solution, just show me a reliable source to your claim "27 teams showed profit". I've done all my work for my argument. Did the math so you wouldn't, posted the links, so.... again all I ask for is one link to the source you have.

Looking at the Forbes article all I really see is the magazine valuing teams.

Operating income is not profit.

And yes, $1 or 100 million in profit is profit. But from what you are saying, even if a team makes only 5 million in profit, they should still go out and spend more than they can ever dream of making to field a competitive team. That by making any profit the owners are proving they don't want to win.

I still see no sense to that argument.

When a baseball player costs less than $400,000 a year, this will no longer be a dumb statement.

First that is a blog, second I did go to the Forbes article, I went through a few teams and never saw mention of "profit". I saw "operating Income" which IS NOT profit.

A measure of a company's earning power from ongoing operations, equal to earnings before deduction of interest payments and income taxes.

Forbes may be good at many things but they are estimates at best.

Somehow, I seriously doubt the Yankees lost money or the Marlins owner made a 43 million dollar profit.

I'm sorry I tend to believe Selig when he says teams are on the cusp of bankruptcy and close to not making payroll.

Truth hurts I guess, Ok I guess they also make up there numbers and only yours are to be considered the truth in that let's just agree to disagree cause we both not going to convince one another.

jaymoney, thanks for the articles. If you're going to make these arguements, we expect your "A" game. Any thing less and the membership stops taking you seriously, both in this thread and out on the rest of the board.

I read the Forbes articles linked in the blog post, and I'm pretty sure that you didn't. If you had, you'd recognize that there's a major difference between "operating income" and "profit". All the line items that are added together to create "operating income" are positive numbers. There are significant negative numbers (the money the organization pays out) in the formula for "profit". Here's the definition of "operating income" that Forbes uses:

What's not included? Well, #3 is going to be a huge negative number for most franchises, especially if they've changed hands in the last few years.

For those of you who want to read the whole report, here it is:

Baseball's Most Valuable Teams - Forbes.com

jaymoney, you're using VERY specific accounting terms to describe an accounting issue. Are you sure you're know enough about the meaning of the words you're using to make your argument? You're confusing two things - profit and operating income - and they're very different things. You started out talking about profit and seem to assume that operating income is synonymous with profit. It's not.

As far as the truth hurting, well, once you figure out what argument you really want to make, you let us know. For now, I'll just keep pointing to the numbers and the definitions of the terms used to arrive at those numbers and ask you which parts you need explained to you.

No, as far as the numbers go, since none of the teams open their books everything's a guess. I'd say the numbers probably lie somewhere in between.

The point is, there aren't many teams that can support a 100 million dollar payroll and that is going to go up because players are always going to want more. Most cities can't raise ticket prices beyond the fan base's means. So, that revenue is pretty much set. The disparity in the league is getting worse. When a team like the Indians has to trade away 2 Cy Young winners because they can't afford to keep them, something is wrong with the system.

I just don't believe it's the owner trying to make money so he won't pay the players. If the Indians were financially able to keep C C and Lee, not to mention Martinez, they would have been able to field a very competitive team, which would have increased attendance, merchandise sales, concessions and so on. They would have made far more money. Economic reality, they could not pay either. This means attendance goes down, merchandise sales go down, concession sales go down. Thus, they don't make as much and every year gets worse.

Given the above paragraph, me personally, can see that baseball must be in serious trouble. You see it differently. And I agree, neither of us will change the others mind.

so can I start a new thread about the wheelings and dealings of the trade market and team news?

I'm a bit bored with all of this big spenders vs. non spenders argument.

You're right. So on that note, I offer Milton Bradley's ad to the Cubs fans...

http://www.tauntr.com/sites/default/...ter_master.jpg

:lol:

Pot meet Kettle.


OH GOD! I DIDN'T MEAN THAT IN A RACIST WAY!

To think he was once a highly regarded "5 tool player" for the Indians. I'd call the guy a nutjob but as I am an admitted nutjob that would be an insult to us. Someone please kick him out of baseball once and for all and put him in a cracker factory... damn is that racist??? I didn't mean it to be. Put him in mental asylum.

The Cubs signed Marlon Byrd to a three-year, $15 million deal. And as commenter Goose1701 said on Fark.com to tie things in with the above...

I'm still kind of in shock about Bay going to the Mets. I guess he's not interested in winning a championship, he's only concerned about a little extra cash.

New to sports are we? Kidding! it is always about the cash...well not always but most times!

I don't begrudge the players one bit for taking advantage of the system. Just makes me look up even more to the players who take discounts and do other things to try and win versus taking the most cash available.

Not to put this on the topic of big market/small again but I just don't understand why people say the system is unfair. I still think it comes back to the owners and what there willing to invest.

Boston and New York were never always big power houses, it only started after they each had owners who were willing to invest. Is Boston not smaller market wise than Texas? Boston is good because they're willing to invest in there team, spend money to make money.

I don't see why teams like Arizona or Chicago can't invest more...oh wait they each have owners (corporations?) that are brutal that's why. You need some rich dude who wants to live vicariously through his sports team. See Mr Jones in Dallas, Mark Cuban, that Henry dude in Boston.

New York didn't win all those World Series' before 1973?

Boston didn't make big signings in the years before John Henry?

It's easy to say that there is no issue because New York and Boston have owners willing to spend. It's much smarter to say that they are willing to spend because they have so much money coming in that there is very little risk in spending on players; a bad contract is a nuisance, whereas to most other teams it is an albatross.

(And by the way, do you really want to go with Boston being a smaller market than Dallas? You might want to do some research, preferably on something other than city-limit population.)

I just went based on population size, not sure what figures go into calculating market size to be honest. Don't people create there own markets anyway?

Is Chicago not bigger than Boston? why can't the cubs or the white soxs spend serious cash? The cubs are not that far behind the redsox's in out of market fans i think. And the redsox nation was only born out of success i believe so why can't another team of similar market share do the same thing? or is NY and Boston the two biggest markets for anything (sports/commerce) in America?

I think the owner is just a big a part as the city you play in. Teams have to earn the fans, do it and your market becomes redsox's nation where you have fans all across the world who have never even been to fenway.

Again I am hardcore Blue jays fan, i just can't begrudge the other teams for spending. I would hate it to be like hockey where everyone is the same, I like rooting against he evil empire!

You have to look at income per household a well as advertising revenues when you focus on market data. New York is a media mecca and Boston isn't far behind, Chicago isn't far behind either, but without doing any research, I would guess that Chicago has a larger poverty rate than Boston..

You know the completely unique advantage Boston has to get those fans spread all around, right?

The Boston area has one of the highest concentrations of colleges and universities in the country, if not the world. Many of those are colleges that draw from all around the country and the world.

This has led to some very fortunate circumstances: the 1967 Impossible Dream season right as the first waves of Baby Boomers were attending college, for example.

Those people then spread back around the country as Sox fans, and raise families as Sox fans.

That's part of why Boston gets placed up with the Yankees though their market ends up on a similar level with Chicago and Los Angeles and Philadelphia. They have that fan base spread all over the place.

It can happen to other teams to a certain extent (there's a few people around the country who grew up as Orioles fans simply because they were a popular team in the late-60s and 70s), but not to the level Boston can because of that simple quirk of culture and geography.

Matt Holliday resigns with St. Louis. Jason Bay finalizes with the Mets. Adrian Beltre goes short-term with Boston.

Hot Stove is over. Time for the long six weeks until the four greatest words in the English language, if not every tongue in the whole of the Universe.

Pitchers and catchers report.

I kinda figured Holliday would end up in St. Louis again.. he even took a pay cut to stay.

Not fond of the Beltre move for Boston.. might be better than Lowell, but Beltre was injured too. Should have went for a first basemen and let Youk play 3rd.

They're going to end up with Adrian Gonzalez next off-season, don't worry. Lowell and Ortiz will be gone, and perhaps Beltre as well, so they'll not only have the roster space but additional money freed.

In a related story, I will now light myself on fire.

I've heard reports that Theo may make a move for Gonzalez right before spring training.. I don't see it happening though.

I'm proud of what Ortiz did for us.. but if he doesn't spring back this year..the mans gotta go.

please take a vid of the blaze.

Andre Dawson makes the Hall of Fame. 78% of the ballots.

Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar fall just short: 74.2 % (five votes short) and 73.7% (eight short) respectively. No one has ever received as many votes and not eventually made the Hall.

Complete voting...BBWAA.com: Official site of the Baseball Writers Assn. of America.

1) Barry Larkin deserved FAR more votes. He's one of the great shortstops ever and should eventually make it.

2) Tim Raines saw his totals jump to ~30%, and may be on the Dawson path: he deserves it, too.

3) If Edgar Martinez was a mediocre defensive first baseman instead of a DH, he would be getting more votes. I just know it, and that's very sad.

4) I love looking at the guys who just received a couple (generally undeserved) votes. I know that when I become a voter and I have room on my ballot I would throw a couple votes in that direction.

5) Reports are that five ballots were returned blank, and that Jay Marriotti has admitted to being one. Disgraces to their profession, those five are.

Jay Marriotti is a douche.. always has been.

Did everyone forget about America's Pastime? Opening Day came and went and the season has started. I'm really excited about the new season.

Forgot about the thread, but not opening day. Glad to see the sox destroy the skanks bullpen in the first game of the season.

How about that play by Buehrle? Fucking amazing, and probably a lot lucky.

Big Z stank it up, that's for sure.

Some things just never change do they?

My Opening Day doesn't start for another 30 minutes :p

But between Buehrle and Heywood, and getting to yell "We want a pitcher, not a belly-itcher" at our president on TV (:D), yesterday was pretty good, too.

The Red Sox suck.

It might be early in the season but to me it's already apparent that Theo went the wrong way on the people he acquired. The one exception is going to be Lackey.

Big Papi has turned into Big Baby. Time to send him out west.

Sigh, my Indians dont disappoint. Yet another year.

Seattle Mariners announce Ken Griffey Jr. retiring - ESPN

What a sad day, and not just because this makes me feel old. He is truly one of the greatest players ever, and even though it's a shame how the second-half of his career went down, he deserves to get all of the praise such an honor deserves. If anyone will (assuming a couple morons die or relinquish their votes), he will be the first unanimous Hall-of-Famer.

And it's even better that he chose a day where absolutely nothing else happened. Nope, nothing went on that would remotely overshadow something like the retirement of a player like Griffey. Nothing at all.

Nothing historically controversial at all.

In all seriousness, MLB needs to act quickly and decisively on the 28 out perfect game. They need to reverse the call. It has no impact on the records or the outcome of the game but it has great historical significance.

Spoiler alert!

Spoiler: The Orioles are 9-2 under Buck Showalter. Seven of the wins have come against the Angels, White Sox and (tonight) Rays. Ten of the games have been quality starts (and the other was still a victory), and the offense has averaged just under five runs a game over the stretch. They play 30 more games against teams presently within six games of their division lead; everyone but Minnesota.

Am I overexcited over a small sample size and a likely hard fall back to Earth soon? Yes. Do I give a shit? HELL NO! :hyper:

After watching the umpire in today's Orioles/Angels game call Josh Bell out at the plate when the catcher missed the tag by about 18 inches, and watching the umpire in today's Texas/Taiwan Little League game use replay to overturn a similar call at third base, I'm convinced that MLB's refusal to put a real instant-replay system into use is close to becoming a worse stain on the sport than steroids. At least they did something about steroids.

What a complete embarrassment. I hope people start letting Bud Selig know that the growing focus on bad calls is going to be his legacy now that the issue of steroids is starting to fade towards the background.

How sad are we? No posts through the pennant races? No comments on the division series or LCSs?

Hell, we just had Game One of the World Series! Giants 8, Rangers 4.

And Tony Bennett sang "God Bless America" (which was the only thing Fox could have done to keep me from changing the channel; I hate that part of every game).

I used to love baseball, but it's not as interesting to me these days. It's too slow, I guess.

Anyway, the actual score of Game 1 of the 2010 World Series is San Francisco Giants: 11, Texas Rangers: 7
Rapid Reaction: Lee, Rangers fall 11-7 - Dallas Texas Rangers Blog - ESPN Dallas

I only got to see the second inning, but I enjoyed what I saw, mainly cuz I'm a Texas boy.

Go Rangers!

Yeah, I missed the end of the game, so I missed the extra scoring without my fact-checking instinct kicking in :p

And yeah, you picked a good inning to see. Better than the fifth at least...

2nd Game of the World Series:
Giants: 9
Rangers: 0

::le sigh::

Congrats on the long overdue World Series championship win, Giants fans.

Great try, Rangers. Maybe next time.