2013 Major League Baseball (MLB)

794564046.gif
 
I'm fairly certain Ortiz juiced as well he's just fortunate to not have been caught. Struggles as a Twin then suddenly explodes after he arrives in Boston. Perhaps he found the right spot, or the right juice. I do find him to be an overall fun guy and great hitterm and love that ESPN commercial with Wally, Posada, and the Yankees hat.

However, I'm of the opinion the overwhelming majority from the mid-80s to about five years ago juiced and therefore I really don't care about it. I enjoyed Braun getting popped because of his dick moves blaming the tester and system. And A-Rod as well because he was supposed to be the one guy that was clean to sweep away the likes of Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, et al.
 
Barbara Charles said:
Every day is a soap opera at Yankee Stadium. A-Rod claims he is fit to play and his MRI shows no muscle strain. Cashman claims he is not fit and will not be until August 1. Yankees seem to be stalling in the hope Major League Baseball will suspend him before he takes the field again.
Click to expand...

Yankees desperate to be rid of him and the only way out is if MLB helps them. Idiots paid him way too much money all for a guy who can't deliver in the clutch, who has been a consistent PR problem, not only cheated but evidence may suggest recruited other players to cheat, oh and I think even if he is suspended the Yanks still have to pay him 16mil. HA HA.
 
If he is suspended they won't have to pay him, pretty much why the Yankees secretly want him suspended so they have some more wiggle room next year.
 
Leg-End said:
If he is suspended they won't have to pay him, pretty much why the Yankees secretly want him suspended so they have some more wiggle room next year.
Click to expand...


It depends on the length of his suspension. If it does get negotiated down to this season and next for his suspension the Yankees get out from under that part of his contract. The problem is his contract runs for 3 years after that and depending on whether it is guaranteed or not, if it is he is actually owed $61m for those 3 season, whether he plays or not.
 
Correct hence I mentioned next year. The owners want to stick to this $189 million payroll plan to reset the luxury tax, A-Rod being suspended for a season saves them $25 million of it, you can plug a lot of holes with that amount of money.

His contract stinks but if they save a season of paying him, they gain in the long term by reseting that luxury tax. The have money coming off the books but they also have lots of positions empty, If they want to keep Cano then he's gonna get paid.
 
They aren't a massive problem, they are fantastic. It's about time that the group that actually generates revenue starts to get rewarded for their efforts. NBA salaries are too low as it is. Imagine if LeBron was on the open market with no salary cap. He would make four or five times what he is making now.
 
Why should a professional athlete receive a guaranteed contract?

NFL gets rid when the player has zero value to the club. No futher payments, just like in many other walks of life nothing is guaranteed. Except MLB and NBA contracts.

I don't see Messi getting 60-100m per year from a club and yet LeBron would? You're intertwining salary caps with guaranteed contracts which are not mutually exclusive to one another.

How is 20m per year too low?
 
MrMarcello said:
Why should a professional athlete receive a guaranteed contract?

NFL gets rid when the player has zero value to the club. No futher payments, just like in many other walks of life nothing is guaranteed. Except MLB and NBA contracts.

I don't see Messi getting 60-100m per year from a club and yet LeBron would? You're intertwining salary caps with guaranteed contracts which are not mutually exclusive to one another.

How is 20m per year too low?
Click to expand...

Because the revenue they generate is massive. It's impossible to lose money owning a team in one of the three major sports.

NFL players get graphically maimed every week for our entertainment and many of them go bankrupt. Teams refuse to renegotiate contracts of underpaid players yet callously cut overpaid ones.

Real Madrid are paying $100 million for Bale plus whatever his wages are. It's not like they've decided that the money invested is too high for a player of his caliber, they just allocate a vast majority to the selling club. If there was no selling club, the economics don't change. If they've valued the acquisition and signing of Bale for five years at $125 million then in a situation with no selling team, more of that would be given to the player.

Did you see the TV deal the Dodgers got? They bought the team for $2 billion (which many thought was an overpay) and then turned it into $25 billion of TV rights before selling a single ticket, jersey or hot dog. The players generate gobs and gobs of money for the owners, it's only fair that they be compensated for that.

Every team in the league was lining up to give Lebron $20 million, you don't think the Nets, Lakers and a couple of others wouldn't roll out the red carpet with $75 million offers if there were no salary cap?

As for Messi, the impact of a basketball player is higher than the impact of a footballer, just because of the structure of the games (roster sizes, players active, etc). But if Messi was a free agent right now don't you think he could get $50 million per year? I bet he could blow past it.
 
Eboue said:
Because the revenue they generate is massive. It's impossible to lose money owning a team in one of the three major sports. NBA clubs have notoriously lost money for years, to the point of two work stoppages in the past 15 years. You're leaving out the NHL despite the fact they are often touted as one of the four major sports and is the biggest league worldwide for its sport - they've lost massive amounts of money. MLB clubs lost money in decades past but appear to be much healthier today. NFL clubs were losing money until they forced a CBA that imposed a cap in 1992 (effective 1994). Smart management should avoid losing money with the massive revenues US sports clubs generate but not all clubs are run fiscally smart. The Dodgers and Angels are spending lavish amounts and have nothing to show for it, possibly operating in the red as we type. They can do such with their local TV contracts and the big market advantange, much like Barca and Real in Spain. However, unlike the Spanish clubs these MLB clubs will fork out a large luxury tax and do not have the global fanbase to generate millions in additional revenues.

NFL players get graphically maimed every week for our entertainment and many of them go bankrupt. Teams refuse to renegotiate contracts of underpaid players yet callously cut overpaid ones. For many players yes, however, star position players do get paid very well and many have their contracts restructured for various reasons. QBs always get their money, so do top tier players at other positions. No one has ever put a gun to the head of a professional athlete so he assumes the risks of his sport. Athletes also require lesser years of service to qualify for pension and other benefits. Not a single athlete in the four major US sports earn less than 300k in a given year (for a full season; rightfully structured for actual days/weeks active if signed during the season).

Real Madrid are paying $100 million for Bale plus whatever his wages are. It's not like they've decided that the money invested is too high for a player of his caliber, they just allocate a vast majority to the selling club. If there was no selling club, the economics don't change. If they've valued the acquisition and signing of Bale for five years at $125 million then in a situation with no selling team, more of that would be given to the player. US sports do not pay transfer fees so it's impossible to compare to other continental sports leagues. The entire business of negotations would change if transfer fees were eliminated (ex: MLB had buy/sell clauses many decades ago until trades became the norm). Clubs may amortize costs of transfers plus salary/wages and bonuses simply for budgetary reasons. Transfer fees also do not relate to actual market value - as we've seen with the sugar daddy clubs and with the big revenue clubs that can overpay to acquire a player. Institute a salary cap and/or transfer cap and we would see transfer fees drop collectively, IMO. In no sense of reality is Bale worth €100m transfer fee. To Real they can simply afford a massive fee where as 99.9% of the other clubs cannot imagine spending that on one player (I doubt even City or PSG would, except for TBPITW which Bale is nowhere remotely near the level of). I can't begin to imagine how the sports in the US would operate if they used a transfer fee system.

Did you see the TV deal the Dodgers got? They bought the team for $2 billion (which many thought was an overpay) and then turned it into $25 billion of TV rights before selling a single ticket, jersey or hot dog. The players generate gobs and gobs of money for the owners, it's only fair that they be compensated for that. True, and we all know the Dodgers are not worth $2.15b paid and are nowhere near the global entity like the Cowboys and Yankees (leaving out the obvious European football clubs). The deal included 250 acres of land and the stadium. 250 acres of land in Southern Cal is priceless. The biggest reason there was a massive bid (next highest bid was $1.5b) is the lure of a regional sports network which is potentially worth billions. If this happens, the SoCal sports fan might be shelling out monthly fees to see his/her fav sports clubs on a regional network. This is why Mark Cuban was looking to buy the Rangers - to form a regional network with two sports clubs.

Players do get royalties from the league and product manufacturers for merchandising rights. Some players have separate endorsement deals. The sky-high salaries have resulted in the rising costs to attend games including ticket costs, concessions, merchandising, even ridiculous parking costs, though I will concede that it's quite likely owners claim the salaries as the biggest factor but I'll say there is greed involved as well. Us fans are the fools for paying such amounts. We're addicts.

Every team in the league was lining up to give Lebron $20 million, you don't think the Nets, Lakers and a couple of others wouldn't roll out the red carpet with $75 million offers if there were no salary cap? Anything is possible but I highly doubt a club is going to pay a single player $75m per year. Perhaps in a few more decades if revenues and salaries keep rising. The Nets are certainly the exception just like City or PSG.

As for Messi, the impact of a basketball player is higher than the impact of a footballer, just because of the structure of the games (roster sizes, players active, etc). But if Messi was a free agent right now don't you think he could get $50 million per year? I bet he could blow past it.
Click to expand...

$50M per year could be possible but nothing like $75m and thereabouts/above IMO. And it would probably be a club with a sugar daddy. I highly doubt United would offer Messi that kind of salary/wage. The US leagues are far different in their set salary/tax concepts and collective revenue sharing schemes. An NFL or NBA club can afford a massive $20-30m salary knowing it will receive x percent of revenue sharing. NFL clubs have something like 100m base just from tv money. The Yankees can have a dozen $10m+ guys due to their massive regional TV contract. Outside the top 10-20 European football clubs which includes the sugar daddies, what other European clubs can budget 100m plus annually?
 
Interesting take on the Dodgers deal and how the Angels and Rangers TV deals are much healthier in comparions.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/...onomist-2b-los-angeles-dodgers-makes-no-sense

Unlike the Angels and the Texas Rangers, who signed a similar 20-year, $3 billion deal with Fox, the Dodgers' new television deal won't simply be a nice influx of cash used to upgrade the roster. It will likely be used to pay for the team, pay for improvements to the stadium and pay for developing the land surrounding the stadium.

"If you take the Fox deal or try to start your own network that's going to eat down your capital cost and you've just lost a huge share of revenue," Rosentraub said. "That's a source of revenue that other teams depend on and that's the issue. The Texas Rangers are swimming in cash and the Angels are swimming in cash because they didn't have these huge capital costs and their TV income is coming into the general operating fund. Well, you're not going to get that with the Dodgers. Not only that but you have problems with the stadium and have to make a significant investment in improving it. That's something the Angels and Rangers don't have to do. Then you have the parking and land surrounding it where you now have a partner in McCourt, who is at best, well, unpredictable. Sounds like a great deal, doesn't it?"
 
Eboue said:
Because the revenue they generate is massive. It's impossible to lose money owning a team in one of the three major sports.

NFL players get graphically maimed every week for our entertainment and many of them go bankrupt. Teams refuse to renegotiate contracts of underpaid players yet callously cut overpaid ones.

Real Madrid are paying $100 million for Bale plus whatever his wages are. It's not like they've decided that the money invested is too high for a player of his caliber, they just allocate a vast majority to the selling club. If there was no selling club, the economics don't change. If they've valued the acquisition and signing of Bale for five years at $125 million then in a situation with no selling team, more of that would be given to the player.

Did you see the TV deal the Dodgers got? They bought the team for $2 billion (which many thought was an overpay) and then turned it into $25 billion of TV rights before selling a single ticket, jersey or hot dog. The players generate gobs and gobs of money for the owners, it's only fair that they be compensated for that.

Every team in the league was lining up to give Lebron $20 million, you don't think the Nets, Lakers and a couple of others wouldn't roll out the red carpet with $75 million offers if there were no salary cap?

As for Messi, the impact of a basketball player is higher than the impact of a footballer, just because of the structure of the games (roster sizes, players active, etc). But if Messi was a free agent right now don't you think he could get $50 million per year? I bet he could blow past it.
Click to expand...

That's true and as businesses, they will say that they need to maximise profits. Ultimately, what this comes down to is the final consumer. If LeBron gets a massive contract, the club pays it. They increase prices to account for tv rights or consumer items like tickets/food/merchadise etc.

If there's a tv deal worth millions or billions, the tv companies will have ppv deals or subscription channels which can be increased to pay for bigger deals. Again, this comes down to the consumer.

I know people who have lost their families due to their 'commitment' to a club. I wouldn't do it because, for me, it comes down to corporate greed and the drive to maximise stakeholder wealth - many of whom are already very well off.
 
A-Rod suspended for 211 games by Major League Baseball. Interesting that he may play during the appeals process. The Yankees must be delighted, as this saves them a whole bunch of money. ADditionally, it does not bode well for his re-entry into baseball after his suspension is served (if the 211 games holds up). He needs another hip operation and he will be 40 or 41 by that time. Over the hill in baseball terms.
 
Barbara Charles said:
A-Rod suspended for 211 games by Major League Baseball. Interesting that he may play during the appeals process. The Yankees must be delighted, as this saves them a whole bunch of money. ADditionally, it does not bode well for his re-entry into baseball after his suspension is served (if the 211 games holds up). He needs another hip operation and he will be 40 or 41 by that time. Over the hill in baseball terms.
Click to expand...


Some team might give him a chance if they are desperate enough. But I think when his suspension is over, most clubs will be glad to leave the Yankees paying the rest of his contract off.

This may not end quickly, he has his appeal and he could always challenge the ban in the courts also.
 
Hard to tell. He's going to have a major black mark. The writers are really going to screw up the Hall of Fame. I mean, Jeff Bagwell didn't get in last year solely because he was a power hitter in the steroid era. I bet we will go 10-15 years before the stars of this era get in. It will probably be by special committee.
 
Pujols done for the season. They're on the hook for eight more years at $25m per (est.). Plus Hamilton's massive contract and his .230 BA /.285 OBP. CJ is doing well though. Can't recall all the other FAs they've signed of late. I would advise other clubs to not follow the Angels philosophy on free agency.


Rangers might be looking at acquiring another starter with Ogando's injury (and shit pitching). It appears either Erik Bedard or Dan Haren would the choices available. I would take the lefty Bedard.
 
The Pujols deal was as stupid as ARod's contract. In other news, did anyone see Dempster's brushing back of ARod? Too bad he was stupid enough to lose the game. And finally, Phillies fire Charlie Manuel and insert Ryne Sandberg. Not sure about Sandberg's managerial capabilities but maybe they figure to keep him only until the end of the season.l
 
If the Yank's can't make the Wild Card (and right now they need a miracle), I hope the A's make it and go all the way.

I've had a soft spot for them ever since I read Moneyball.
 
It would take a miracle for the MFYs to make the wild card, leg-end. I do, however, admire Joe Girardi's skill this year in putting together line-ups when he had scraps to deal with.
 
Not many teams could sustain a winning record with what Joe's has had to put on the field for most of the season. The only real annoyance with him for me is the constant use of Chris Stewart at catcher, particularly post-all star break as Romine has been hitting yet can't get a run of games. Cashman needed to do something one way or another at the deadline. He could have been a seller and restocked on prospects or he should have gotten atleast 2 bats whilst the team was still waiting on hitters to return. In the end the only move made was Soriano and it was done by upper management, not good enough.

Next year doesn't fill me with confidence either given the planned payroll budget and huge gaps in the lineup/rotation with zero prospects at a level ready to help. Too many good teams in baseball now to get away with substandard poorly built lineups.
 
Big win by the Red Sox. 20-4.

How come Tampa Bay had so many matches in hand on Boston? Its only 3 now, but a week ago, they had 7. Is it just scheduling or did the Rays have other problems?
 
Why not just play in the rain? Football (Gaelic), hurling, rugby, soccer all keep playing. Cricket and baseball get called off for rain? Why?

Incidentally, baseball rainouts is where the term raincheck came from.....
 
They'll play in light rain but if the field gets saturated to a certain point and/or the rain gets heavy, or there's lightning/heavy winds, they will delay a game. A rainout often occurs when the delay can no longer go on, or if preceding weather factors force it. Baseball simply has different rules than other sports. I didn't mind playing gridiron football and soccer in rain as a kid, but hated playing baseball in rain. I hated how the uniform material would cling to me as it was soaked.

Cricket is crap, let's pretend it does not exist.
 
I love the way that baseball has its heroes and they're still revered today. I know its a bs comparison, but in the way that it is the "people's game", it resembles GAA so much in that regard. Your Ruths and Williamses have stood as icons for so many years now. Hurling has Ring, the Mackeys, the Doyles, the Rackards, DJ and King Henry....these men will never be forgotten.

I was watching the highlights of the 20-4 win and Ortiz's 2000th hit. He doffed his helmet in acknowledgement of the acclaim and the applause continued until he put it back on. I love how sometimes the player re-emerges from the dugout to acknowledge the crowd. In a country where money talks so much in sport, I think that these tiny parts of baseball make it great.

Jesus, I have to get to Fenway!
 
Houston Astros, if their record remains unchanged, will join the 1998 Marlins, the 1979 Oakland Athletics and the 1914 Cleveland Naps with the 59th worst record of all time at 0.333. If Houston don't win again for the season, they will go in at 15th, with a 0.290 record.

In 2003, the Tigers were the first team in over 35 years to make it into the top 25 with a 0.265 win percentage (6th).
 
Just reading up on the 1994/95 players strike. I was in Cape May NJ for that summer and was fascinated by the amounts of money on offer to the top players at the time. The Premiership was nowhere near the MLB salaries - MLB>EPL by a factor of about 8. I was to be brought to a Phillies game about a week or two after the strike started, but this chance was gone.

What struck me there now, was that the fans' interpretation of the strike, as opposed to, say, the 1981 strike during which they suppported the players. According the the Wiki article, attendances dropped by 20% in a shortened 1995 season. How long did this impact the fans and attendances?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.