MLB 2019 Season

1484485487489490504

Comments

  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,420
    pjhawks said:
    Most other banks will fall in line with paygrades is the definition of collusion no?
    no.   payrolls are not unlimited. is this a difficult concept?  heck even your yankees understand this to a point.


    Never even mildly insinuated so. However with revenue what it is, there is a lot of room to grow. Yankees revenue is up, and payroll is generally down (though higher than last year). Bet you’re pumped Hal has that extra money
    even the Yanks have a payroll limit which just proves my point.
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,421
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    Most other banks will fall in line with paygrades is the definition of collusion no?
    no.   payrolls are not unlimited. is this a difficult concept?  heck even your yankees understand this to a point.


    Never even mildly insinuated so. However with revenue what it is, there is a lot of room to grow. Yankees revenue is up, and payroll is generally down (though higher than last year). Bet you’re pumped Hal has that extra money
    even the Yanks have a payroll limit which just proves my point.
    Nothing proves your point. It’s a self imposed limit to keep more money for themselves. You have no point. You never do


  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,421
    My point: baseball revenue is up so teams should be willing to give lots of money to the best players in the game, especially when they’re young.

    Your point: owners making more money and not spending on payroll, keeping the higher revenues for themselves rather than investing in the product is good
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,420
    edited February 12
    My point: baseball revenue is up so teams should be willing to give lots of money to the best players in the game, especially when they’re young.

    Your point: owners making more money and not spending on payroll, keeping the higher revenues for themselves rather than investing in the product is good
    huh? i never said the owners were keeping the money for themselves. my original point was that the two asshole agents are holding up teams from signing other players. the agents and players themselves are blaming the owners for guys not being signed. it's not the owners fault. how the fuck can the Phillies figure out their payroll for the season (a season that pre-season is now starting) until they know if either of these guys will sign? again it's not unlimited payrolls for these teams.  and there is a 100% tax if you go over the threshold. 

    are you suggesting it's the owners fault that Harper and Machado aren't signed yet?  you can't possibly think that...
    Post edited by pjhawks on
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,421
    edited February 12
    pjhawks said:
    My point: baseball revenue is up so teams should be willing to give lots of money to the best players in the game, especially when they’re young.

    Your point: owners making more money and not spending on payroll, keeping the higher revenues for themselves rather than investing in the product is good
    huh? i never said the owners were keeping the money for themselves. my original point was that the two asshole agents are holding up teams from signing other players. the agents and players themselves are blaming the owners for guys not being signed. it's not the owners fault. how the fuck can the Phillies figure out their payroll for the season (a season that pre-season is now starting) until they know if either of these guys will sign? again it's not unlimited payrolls for these teams.  and there is a 100% tax if you go over the threshold. 

    are you suggesting it's the owners fault that Harper and Machado aren't signed yet?  you can't possibly think that...
    If revenue is going up and payrolls aren’t, where is the money going? Charity?

    Lol what? There is a 100% tax if you go over the threshold?! Might want to look that one up again. 

    Of course it is. We don’t know the offers but they are clearly not in the range they find acceptable 
    Post edited by Cliffy6745 on
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,420
    pjhawks said:
    My point: baseball revenue is up so teams should be willing to give lots of money to the best players in the game, especially when they’re young.

    Your point: owners making more money and not spending on payroll, keeping the higher revenues for themselves rather than investing in the product is good
    huh? i never said the owners were keeping the money for themselves. my original point was that the two asshole agents are holding up teams from signing other players. the agents and players themselves are blaming the owners for guys not being signed. it's not the owners fault. how the fuck can the Phillies figure out their payroll for the season (a season that pre-season is now starting) until they know if either of these guys will sign? again it's not unlimited payrolls for these teams.  and there is a 100% tax if you go over the threshold. 

    are you suggesting it's the owners fault that Harper and Machado aren't signed yet?  you can't possibly think that...
    If revenue is going up and payrolls aren’t, where is the money going? Charity?

    Lol what? There is a 100% tax if you go over the threshold?! Might want to look that one up again. 

    Of course it is. We don’t know the offers but they are clearly not in the range they find acceptable 
    yea i misinterpreted that tax rate.  my team hasn't been close to it so can understand my ignorance. figures a yankees fan would know.

    because what they deem acceptable may appear ridiculous to the teams.  giving 10 years is not a smart move even if my Phils might do it.
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,421
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    My point: baseball revenue is up so teams should be willing to give lots of money to the best players in the game, especially when they’re young.

    Your point: owners making more money and not spending on payroll, keeping the higher revenues for themselves rather than investing in the product is good
    huh? i never said the owners were keeping the money for themselves. my original point was that the two asshole agents are holding up teams from signing other players. the agents and players themselves are blaming the owners for guys not being signed. it's not the owners fault. how the fuck can the Phillies figure out their payroll for the season (a season that pre-season is now starting) until they know if either of these guys will sign? again it's not unlimited payrolls for these teams.  and there is a 100% tax if you go over the threshold. 

    are you suggesting it's the owners fault that Harper and Machado aren't signed yet?  you can't possibly think that...
    If revenue is going up and payrolls aren’t, where is the money going? Charity?

    Lol what? There is a 100% tax if you go over the threshold?! Might want to look that one up again. 

    Of course it is. We don’t know the offers but they are clearly not in the range they find acceptable 
    yea i misinterpreted that tax rate.  my team hasn't been close to it so can understand my ignorance. figures a yankees fan would know.

    because what they deem acceptable may appear ridiculous to the teams.  giving 10 years is not a smart move even if my Phils might do it.
    Because of age, there is only really one contract you can compare. All the other 10 year contracts signed by players over 30 are irrelevant. Now don’t get me wrong, neither of these guys are Arod, by any stretch, and this contract didn’t run it’s course with the opt out, but....



    Read this contract is worth upwards of $450 mil in today’s dollars. If this is $450 mil, $300 mil plus doesn’t seem unreasonable 
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,054
    I wouldn't sign ANY player to a 10 year deal in his 30's.

    I would consider it for a guy in his mid 20's though.

    Also no pitcher is worth 10 years no matter what the age is.
  • I wouldn't sign ANY player to a 10 year deal in his 30's.

    I would consider it for a guy in his mid 20's though.

    Also no pitcher is worth 10 years no matter what the age is.

    I'd sign Trout.

    Harper and Machado are both risks given their character. I wouldn't want either player if they came at great expense.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 16,000
    Arod evaluation needs to include the roids.  ;)
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,054
    I wouldn't sign ANY player to a 10 year deal in his 30's.

    I would consider it for a guy in his mid 20's though.

    Also no pitcher is worth 10 years no matter what the age is.

    I'd sign Trout.

    Harper and Machado are both risks given their character. I wouldn't want either player if they came at great expense.
    Everyone loves Trout.

    Squeaky clean.  He will be a Philly soon though... Boo Angels.

    Harper and Machado I would sign too.  They are young enough but Harper has been accident prone the last 3 years, no?
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 14,109
    How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity.  Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all.  I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it.  The good far, far outweighs the bad.  It's just asinine.
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,421
    edited February 12
    How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity.  Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all.  I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it.  The good far, far outweighs the bad.  It's just asinine.
    I get the Manny hustle and dirty play stuff, but people keep saying he's a bad teammate.  Have you ever heard one of his teammates say something bad about him?  Buck for that matter?  Blown way out of proportion.  Granted I think he is a punk and a baby in general, but the bad teammate stuff seems inaccurate.
    Post edited by Cliffy6745 on
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 16,234
    How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity.  Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all.  I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it.  The good far, far outweighs the bad.  It's just asinine.
    These past 2 seasons many players have gone unsigned late. That's why some had to sign 1 year deals
    I miss igotid88
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 14,109
    How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity.  Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all.  I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it.  The good far, far outweighs the bad.  It's just asinine.
    I get the Manny hustle and dirty play stuff, but people keep saying he's a bad teammate.  Have you ever heard one of his teammates say something bad about him?  Buck for that matter?  Blown way out of proportion 
    I have not heard any such thing.  And I know quite a few Orioles fans & insiders.  The hustle comment was definitely overblown.  I know Boston fans have an issue with him because of Pedroia, but Pedey himself is over it.  And I quote:
    "What is this, high school? I'm a grown-ass man, dude. Come on. I'm just working hard to get healthy." - Dustin Pedroia, 2018.
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,421
    How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity.  Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all.  I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it.  The good far, far outweighs the bad.  It's just asinine.
    I get the Manny hustle and dirty play stuff, but people keep saying he's a bad teammate.  Have you ever heard one of his teammates say something bad about him?  Buck for that matter?  Blown way out of proportion 
    I have not heard any such thing.  And I know quite a few Orioles fans & insiders.  The hustle comment was definitely overblown.  I know Boston fans have an issue with him because of Pedroia, but Pedey himself is over it.  And I quote:
    "What is this, high school? I'm a grown-ass man, dude. Come on. I'm just working hard to get healthy." - Dustin Pedroia, 2018.
    Agreed.  I did add to my post that I think he is a baby.  He cries a lot.  But bad teammate, no.
  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 9,767
    What’s the best offer Harper has got? $400 mil would be an absurd expectation even if every season he played matched his best season.

    Machado did enough on the field to deserve stupid money but what kinda dipshit sees such an anticipated huge payday and douches it up on the national stage like he did?
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,420
    DewieCox said:
    What’s the best offer Harper has got? $400 mil would be an absurd expectation even if every season he played matched his best season.

    Machado did enough on the field to deserve stupid money but what kinda dipshit sees such an anticipated huge payday and douches it up on the national stage like he did?
    supposedly Harper turned down 10 years $300 million from the Nats last season. 
  • Indifference71Indifference71 ChicagoPosts: 13,114
    How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity.  Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all.  I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it.  The good far, far outweighs the bad.  It's just asinine.

    Yeah it's pretty wild.  Are there really concerns out there about Harper's character?  The guy was one of the most hyped up baseball players in recent memory and was in the big leagues at 19...of course he's going to be a cocky asshole.  All that seems to have gone away.  

    Machado has some flaws but his talent is incredible.  If the White Sox don't end up with him I am going to be livid.  Guys as good as these 2 don't become free agents this young very often.
    6/18/03, 5/17/06, 6/30/06, 8/5/07, 6/22/08, 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 5/7/10, 9/3/11, 9/4/11, 7/19/13, 11/21/13, 11/23/13, 11/24/13, 10/17/14, 10/20/14, 4/18/16, 4/20/16, 5/2/16, 5/3/16, 8/20/16, 8/22/16
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 11,501
  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 25,062
    How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity.  Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all.  I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it.  The good far, far outweighs the bad.  It's just asinine.

    Yeah it's pretty wild.  Are there really concerns out there about Harper's character?  The guy was one of the most hyped up baseball players in recent memory and was in the big leagues at 19...of course he's going to be a cocky asshole.  All that seems to have gone away.  


    I don’t think he ever had bad “character”.....he just rubbed people wrong cuz he’s good and he knows it.

    kinda like Bonds :wink:
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,421
    Wobbie said:
    How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity.  Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all.  I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it.  The good far, far outweighs the bad.  It's just asinine.

    Yeah it's pretty wild.  Are there really concerns out there about Harper's character?  The guy was one of the most hyped up baseball players in recent memory and was in the big leagues at 19...of course he's going to be a cocky asshole.  All that seems to have gone away.  


    I don’t think he ever had bad “character”.....he just rubbed people wrong cuz he’s good and he knows it.

    kinda like Bonds :wink:
    Anyone, and I mean, ANYONE, that papelbon does not like, I like. So I think his character is just fine 
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 14,109
    Wobbie said:
    How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity.  Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all.  I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it.  The good far, far outweighs the bad.  It's just asinine.

    Yeah it's pretty wild.  Are there really concerns out there about Harper's character?  The guy was one of the most hyped up baseball players in recent memory and was in the big leagues at 19...of course he's going to be a cocky asshole.  All that seems to have gone away.  


    I don’t think he ever had bad “character”.....he just rubbed people wrong cuz he’s good and he knows it.

    kinda like Bonds :wink:
    Anyone, and I mean, ANYONE, that papelbon does not like, I like. So I think his character is just fine 
    That is about the dead truth.  If Papelbon gets into it with you, you're about 99.9999....999...% guaranteed to be a good dude.
  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 25,062
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.

    and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another

    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,420
    Wobbie said:
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.

    and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another

    interesting article. i guess it's not the owners colluding like some are inferring.

    i'm not sure what the solution is to the over use of relief pitches but i don't think the 3 batter minimum rule is really a worthy idea.  personally i'd prefer a rule limiting the number of pitchers that can be used over a period of time. Of course I have no idea how an idea like that could be put into place. too many variables to figure out a formula and accounting for long games and blowouts. 
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,421
    Wobbie said:
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.

    and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another

    Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth.  Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s.  Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years.  Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years.  Players clearly dropped off sooner.  

    So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now?  Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.

    Still not buying it.
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,420
    Wobbie said:
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.

    and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another

    Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth.  Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s.  Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years.  Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years.  Players clearly dropped off sooner.  

    So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now?  Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.

    Still not buying it.
    the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficiently

    "Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,421
    pjhawks said:
    Wobbie said:
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.

    and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another

    Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth.  Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s.  Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years.  Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years.  Players clearly dropped off sooner.  

    So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now?  Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.

    Still not buying it.
    the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficiently

    "Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."
    Which is precisely why you sign 26 year olds who are some of the best players in the game.
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 11,501
    pjhawks said:
    Wobbie said:
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.

    and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another

    Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth.  Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s.  Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years.  Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years.  Players clearly dropped off sooner.  

    So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now?  Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.

    Still not buying it.
    the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficiently

    "Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."
    Which is precisely why you sign 26 year olds who are some of the best players in the game.
    Haha. It's also not a coincidence that the avg. career of a MLB player is 5.5 years and club control lasts 6.
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,420
    pjhawks said:
    Wobbie said:
    hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:


    giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.

    and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another

    Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth.  Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s.  Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years.  Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years.  Players clearly dropped off sooner.  

    So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now?  Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.

    Still not buying it.
    the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficiently

    "Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."
    Which is precisely why you sign 26 year olds who are some of the best players in the game.
    yes but not for 10 years like these guys want. that's kind of the whole point... 
Sign In or Register to comment.