Will the Tigers trade Skubal?
Will the Brewers trade Peralta?
Will the Twins try?
Will the Cubs overcome an opponent waving an "L" flag after beating them in a playoff series?
Will the Cardinals be selling?
Will White Sox fans continue to be lectured about how they should enjoy their team?
Will Brewers fans complain about other teams spending while their team only spends 40% of their revenue?
Quote from: Uncle Rico on November 03, 2025, 08:43:22 AMWill the Cubs overcome an opponent waving an "L" flag after beating them in a playoff series?
Nope. I personally fear this has become the new Billy Goat. I'm afraid my 3 year old son will never see another Cubs playoff series win
Quote from: Uncle Rico on November 03, 2025, 08:43:22 AMWill the Tigers trade Skubal?
Will the Brewers trade Peralta?
Will the Twins try?
Will the Cubs overcome an opponent waving an "L" flag after beating them in a playoff series?
Will the Cardinals be selling?
Will White Sox fans continue to be lectured about how they should enjoy their team?
All these questions pale until the big one is answered.
What are Yadi's plans?
Quote from: TallTitan34 on November 03, 2025, 09:07:08 AMWill Brewers fans complain about other teams spending while their team only spends 40% of their revenue?
No. We're terrified of the "L" flag curse
What does it even matter? The Dodgers are guaranteed victories in the next 20 World Series.
I mean, just look at the way they dominated the Blue Jays, sweeping the series and winning every game by at least 5 runs.
I think the Tigers will shop Skubal. I think their asking price will be proportionate to Skubal's salary expectations. If somebody meets their price, he gone.
I think Detroit will probably be shopping for a right handed hitting CF, an established starting pitcher, and a high level prospect starting pitcher. Those three things combined will get you a Skubal.
The White Sox, having moved from historical to just a simply bad club, don't deserve any hot stove chatter. They were more interesting when history was in play. They are in the DePaul category of interest.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on November 03, 2025, 11:47:50 AMThe White Sox, having moved from historical to just a simply bad club, don't deserve any hot stove chatter. They were more interesting when history was in play. They are in the DePaul category of interest.
What a surprising take
Quote from: WhiteTrash on November 03, 2025, 11:47:50 AMThe White Sox, having moved from historical to just a simply bad club, don't deserve any hot stove chatter. They were more interesting when history was in play. They are in the DePaul category of interest.
I found myself taking a look at some of the encouraging rookie stats and what they might be doing with the plethora of young good hitting catcher talent they've acquired this morning.
About 30 mins after that my iron rod was sufficiently heated over an open flame to shove up my dick hole because I had the audacity to care.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on November 03, 2025, 11:54:58 AMWhat a surprising take
Fans of a club coming off a third strait 100+ lose season would be disinterested. But JR is excited ...... for another $75M payroll next year.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on November 03, 2025, 12:17:32 PMFans of a club coming off a third strait 100+ lose season would be disinterested. But JR is excited ...... for another $75M payroll next year.
I'm willing to bet there will be White Sox chatter here
Quote from: Uncle Rico on November 03, 2025, 12:20:43 PMI'm willing to bet there will be White Sox chatter here
54 MLB rookies had WARs of 1.2 or above last year. Nine of them played for the White Sox. Even with all those graduations to the majors, White Sox still have five players on MLB Pipeline's Top 100 prospects, which I believe is topped only by the Dodgers and Mariners.
#futureisbright
Quote from: Pakuni on November 03, 2025, 01:15:16 PM54 MLB rookies had WARs of 1.2 or above last year. Nine of them played for the White Sox. Even with all those graduations to the majors, White Sox still have five players on MLB Pipeline's Top 100 prospects, which I believe is topped only by the Dodgers and Mariners.
#futureisbright
Just my opinion, but I think it is asking a lot of the CWS fans to get excited (except for the impending change in ownership).
Quote from: TallTitan34 on November 03, 2025, 09:07:08 AMWill Brewers fans complain about other teams spending while their team only spends 40% of their revenue?
Will the Cubs win a division or playoff series over the team that spends 40% of their revenue, a much smaller revenue than the Cubs have.
Oh wait, the Cubs only spend 36% of their revenue. Yet their payroll is over 50% higher than the Brewers. Huh. It's almost like there isn't an even playing field in baseball.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on November 03, 2025, 11:47:50 AMThe White Sox, having moved from historical to just a simply bad club, don't deserve any hot stove chatter. They were more interesting when history was in play. They are in the DePaul category of interest.
Maybe they can improve a little more next year and move up to Georgetown level.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 03, 2025, 02:30:12 PMWill the Cubs win a division or playoff series over the team that spends 40% of their revenue, a much smaller revenue than the Cubs have.
Oh wait, the Cubs only spend 36% of their revenue. Yet their payroll is over 50% higher than the Brewers. Huh. It's almost like there isn't an even playing field in baseball.
So you brag how you routinely beat the Cubs who have a higher payroll but also complain its unfair teams have higher revenue/payroll.
Again, I have no problem contracting the Brewers to level the playing field.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on November 03, 2025, 02:35:21 PMSo you brag how you routinely beat the Cubs who have a higher payroll but also complain its unfair teams have higher revenue/payroll.
Again, I have no problem contracting the Brewers to level the playing field.
Yes, it's absurd that there's no revenue sharing or salary cap in baseball. I wonder why every other major professional sport has at least one of those things...
Quote from: wadesworld on November 03, 2025, 02:36:49 PMI wonder why every other major professional sport has at least one of those things...
Because MLB has the strongest players union?
Quote from: WhiteTrash on November 03, 2025, 02:04:42 PMJust my opinion, but I think it is asking a lot of the CWS fans to get excited (except for the impending change in ownership).
As a fan, you're free to get excited about whatever you want to get excited about. Or not.
Your level of optimism/pessimism is entirely up to you.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on November 03, 2025, 02:37:52 PMBecause MLB has the strongest players union?
Lords of the Realm covers the history of the labor movement in baseball and ownership burying their heads in the sand that lead to the strength of the union. It's easily a top 5 must-read for baseball fans and lays out why baseball is where it is.
It's a great corollary for the NCAA and it's burying its head in the sand for decades. The similarities are striking.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 03, 2025, 02:36:49 PMYes, it's absurd that there's no revenue sharing or salary cap in baseball. I wonder why every other major professional sport has at least one of those things...
There's definitely revenue sharing in baseball.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on November 03, 2025, 02:40:58 PMLords of the Realm covers the history of the labor movement in baseball and ownership burying their heads in the sand that lead to the strength of the union. It's easily a top 5 must-read for baseball fans and lays out why baseball is where it is.
It's a great corollary for the NCAA and it's burying its head in the sand for decades. The similarities are striking.
Interesting. I'll give that a look.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on November 03, 2025, 02:44:52 PMInteresting. I'll give that a look.
It's hands down the best book about labor and ownership in sports. Thorough and heartbreaking if you're a baseball fan.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on November 03, 2025, 02:40:58 PMLords of the Realm covers the history of the labor movement in baseball and ownership burying their heads in the sand that lead to the strength of the union. It's easily a top 5 must-read for baseball fans and lays out why baseball is where it is.
It's a great corollary for the NCAA and it's burying its head in the sand for decades. The similarities are striking.
Then you would love "The Game". It's about Baseball's power brokers - centering on Selig, Steinbrenner, and Don Fehr.
Quote from: Jockey on November 03, 2025, 03:55:01 PMThen you would love "The Game". It's about Baseball's power brokers - centering on Selig, Steinbrenner, and Don Fehr.
Read it. Not as big a fan of this as Lords of the Realm but it covers the ground post LOTR very well. Little too much Steinbrenner genuflecting but the history from '94 on behind the scenes is dominated by him in many ways, it fits
Quote from: Uncle Rico on November 03, 2025, 04:00:57 PMRead it. Not as big a fan of this as Lords of the Realm but it covers the ground post LOTR very well. Little too much Steinbrenner genuflecting but the history from '94 on behind the scenes is dominated by him in many ways, it fits
I'll check out LOTR.
Tolkien did a heckuva job.
Woody opts out of his deal and is a FA. Wonder if the Dodgers give him more than the $20MM option to come out of the pen for them.
Quote from: tower912 on November 03, 2025, 04:32:38 PMTolkien did a heckuva job.
Hobbits absolutely love baseball.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 03, 2025, 04:54:35 PMWoody opts out of his deal and is a FA. Wonder if the Dodgers give him more than the $20MM option to come out of the pen for them.
He's the only Brewer that can hit postseason Dodger pitching.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 03, 2025, 04:54:35 PMWoody opts out of his deal and is a FA. Wonder if the Dodgers give him more than the $20MM option to come out of the pen for them.
His option had a $10M buyout, so he only needs $10.1M to come out ahead.
Quote from: ChuckyChip on November 04, 2025, 06:46:26 AMHis option had a $10M buyout, so he only needs $10.1M to come out ahead.
Right. Seems like a no-brainer move for him.
Game 7 was the most watched MLB game in 8 years.
https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/breaking-news/article/world-series-2025-dodgers-blue-jays-game-7-is-reportedly-most-watched-baseball-game-since-2017-201641417.html?
Quote from: MU82 on November 04, 2025, 08:09:38 AMGame 7 was the most watched MLB game in 8 years.
https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/breaking-news/article/world-series-2025-dodgers-blue-jays-game-7-is-reportedly-most-watched-baseball-game-since-2017-201641417.html?
But the Dodgers are bad for baseball.
They are making money with their model. Spending money to make money.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2025, 08:36:33 AMBut the Dodgers are bad for baseball.
Yeah, I think its pretty obvious that dynasties are actually good for sports. Like it or not, people tune into the Dodgers. They tuned in to the Yankees during their run. They tuned in to the Bulls. They tune in to the Chiefs.
It's cool when the field is leveled so other fanbases can get involved, but as far as a large national audience, the dynasty is what draws in the casuals.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2025, 08:36:33 AMBut the Dodgers are bad for baseball.
How much did the Dodgers pay you for this snark?
Quote from: The Sultan on November 04, 2025, 08:43:49 AMYeah, I think its pretty obvious that dynasties are actually good for sports. Like it or not, people tune into the Dodgers. They tuned in to the Yankees during their run. They tuned in to the Bulls. They tune in to the Chiefs.
It's cool when the field is leveled so other fanbases can get involved, but as far as a large national audience, the dynasty is what draws in the casuals.
That's why I want them to win 4-5 in a row
Quote from: MU82 on November 04, 2025, 08:51:14 AMHow much did the Dodgers pay you for this snark?
$5 today, but I'll get $10 million a year starting in 2035.
For comparison sake ... The NBA Finals, despite a strong showing for Game 7, averaged just 10.3 million viewers this year.
It helps that the entire state of Canada was watching their Jays.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2025, 08:36:33 AMBut the Dodgers are bad for baseball.
Said nobody.
No salary cap is absurd.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 04, 2025, 11:17:29 AMSaid nobody.
A fan poll published in The Athletic last month:
Are the Dodgers, as the modern-day villain, good or bad for baseball?
Good for baseball - 28.4%
Bad for baseball - 55.2%
No opinion - 16.4%
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6744388/2025/10/24/mlb-world-series-dodgers-poll-blue-jays/
QuoteNo salary cap is absurd.
No salary floor is more absurd.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2025, 11:35:54 AMA fan poll published in The Athletic last week:
Are the Dodgers, as the modern-day villain, good or bad for baseball?
Good for baseball - 28.4%
Bad for baseball - 55.2%
No opinion - 16.4%
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6744388/2025/10/24/mlb-world-series-dodgers-poll-blue-jays/
No salary floor is more absurd.
Fair enough on the Athletic. I agree on the salary floor. That would obviously come if a cap was ever implemented.
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2025/10/29/the-cubs-were-reportedly-unwilling-to-structure-a-shohei-ohtani-contract-the-same-way-the-dodgers-did/
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2025, 11:35:54 AMA fan poll published in The Athletic last month:
Are the Dodgers, as the modern-day villain, good or bad for baseball?
Good for baseball - 28.4%
Bad for baseball - 55.2%
No opinion - 16.4%
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6744388/2025/10/24/mlb-world-series-dodgers-poll-blue-jays/
No salary floor is more absurd.
I don't think the Dodgers are "bad" for Baseball. Hell, the Jays should be the champs, not LA. If they were "bad for baseball," then they would have swept through every series and not needed a 9th inning HR off a gas can closer to save their season.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on November 03, 2025, 09:07:08 AMWill Brewers fans complain about other teams spending while their team only spends 40% of their revenue?
Curiously the most consistent complaint among my very wide circle of Brewers fan friends/family is that the Brewers don't spend enough, not that the Dodgers spend too much.
Quote from: jficke13 on November 04, 2025, 01:10:50 PMCuriously the most consistent complaint among my very wide circle of Brewers fan friends/family is that the Brewers don't spend enough, not that the Dodgers spend too much.
Yeah, I know some Pirates fans and they're not worried about the Yankees or Dodgers stealing Skenes, they're worried about ownership being too cheap to pay him and giving him away like Gerrit Cole.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2025, 01:17:37 PMYeah, I know some Pirates fans and they're not worried about the Yankees or Dodgers stealing Skenes, they're worried about ownership being too cheap to pay him and giving him away like Gerrit Cole.
And quite frankly, this whole amateur draft is silly too. Let the teams bid for the talent they want and let the chips fall where they may.
Quote from: jficke13 on November 04, 2025, 01:10:50 PMCuriously the most consistent complaint among my very wide circle of Brewers fan friends/family is that the Brewers don't spend enough, not that the Dodgers spend too much.
Meh. Most people I know just understand that when the Brewers have a high level arm, they aren't going to be able to pay that arm once they hit free agency, so the smart move is usually to trade the arm prior to that happening. That's the reality of baseball as it is. The Brewers can't afford to give a Corbin Burnes $210MM and then have his arm explode (exactly how it happened). The Dodgers (particularly), Yankees, Mets, etc. can afford the risk of that happening.
Quote from: jficke13 on November 04, 2025, 01:10:50 PMCuriously the most consistent complaint among my very wide circle of Brewers fan friends/family is that the Brewers don't spend enough, not that the Dodgers spend too much.
Spending stupidly is worst than not spending in many circumstances.
The Brewers matching the deal Adames got would have been bad money spent.
Avoiding risk completely is a problem.
Substitute Skubal and Tigers fans.
There ain't gonna be a salary cap.
MLB influencer Victor Conte has passed away.
(https://www.reuters.com/resizer/v2/IISD5ZCWYJJ7LN2CFZDI7OI3IU.jpg?auth=64d9a6f6b5a8ff4fa26287486e3c0122f0029a49ffd255f4fed66743c26f16fb&width=5760&quality=80)
Quote from: Uncle Rico on November 03, 2025, 02:40:58 PMLords of the Realm covers the history of the labor movement in baseball and ownership burying their heads in the sand that lead to the strength of the union. It's easily a top 5 must-read for baseball fans and lays out why baseball is where it is.
It's a great corollary for the NCAA and it's burying its head in the sand for decades. The similarities are striking.
One of the best baseball books I ever read. I strongly second Rico's recommendation.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 04, 2025, 01:43:24 PMMeh. Most people I know just understand that when the Brewers have a high level arm, they aren't going to be able to pay that arm once they hit free agency, so the smart move is usually to trade the arm prior to that happening. That's the reality of baseball as it is. The Brewers can't afford to give a Corbin Burnes $210MM and then have his arm explode (exactly how it happened). The Dodgers (particularly), Yankees, Mets, etc. can afford the risk of that happening.
This, more than anything else, is the problem. There are maybe 5-6 teams that could afford the risk that the Snell contract presented. It's the risks you can't afford to take.
This WS was extremely good baseball. And it should be, there were more than a half dozen MVP/Cy Young caliber players playing. The fact that stars demand eyeballs and also produce aesthetically pleasing baseball isn't a hot take. It's the competitive balance to get there that is the problem. Other teams can have a seat at the table but there are a lot of breaks that have to go their way for that to happen. Next to no margin for error. And none of that was in play here - TOR is 5th in payroll. I think the gap between will get closed in the next CBA - there won't be a cap but I bet the tax calc will be different and disallow deferred money to the extent the dodgers have used it.
For what it's worth, I think viewership is slightly inflated by having an entire country rally around its only team.
Quote from: GB Warrior on November 04, 2025, 07:07:47 PMThis, more than anything else, is the problem. There are maybe 5-6 teams that could afford the risk that the Snell contract presented. It's the risks you can't afford to take.
This WS was extremely good baseball. And it should be, there were more than a half dozen MVP/Cy Young caliber players playing. The fact that stars demand eyeballs and also produce aesthetically pleasing baseball isn't a hot take. It's the competitive balance to get there that is the problem. Other teams can have a seat at the table but there are a lot of breaks that have to go their way for that to happen. Next to no margin for error. And none of that was in play here - TOR is 5th in payroll. I think the gap between will get closed in the next CBA - there won't be a cap but I bet the tax calc will be different and disallow deferred money to the extent the dodgers have used it.
For what it's worth, I think viewership is slightly inflated by having an entire country rally around its only team.
The figures were just from the Fox broadcast.
From the story:
And those numbers don't include Canadian viewership on Sportsnet. Per Front Office Sports, 10.9 million Canadian viewers on average watched Saturday's game. That's roughly 1/4 of Canada's population of 41-plus million people.
Flaherty exercises his option to remain a Tiger.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 04, 2025, 08:03:44 PMThe figures were just from the Fox broadcast.
From the story:
And those numbers don't include Canadian viewership on Sportsnet. Per Front Office Sports, 10.9 million Canadian viewers on average watched Saturday's game. That's roughly 1/4 of Canada's population of 41-plus million people.
I didn't see that or this because they undermine the aside in my argument.
Bieber opts in at $16 million. Really surprising - he had a $4 million buyout. If he had opted out, I would have thought the Blue Jays would have gladly given him $15+ AAV on a new deal if he wanted to stay there.
Quote from: 18thandWells on November 04, 2025, 04:43:45 PMMLB influencer Victor Conte has passed away.
(https://www.reuters.com/resizer/v2/IISD5ZCWYJJ7LN2CFZDI7OI3IU.jpg?auth=64d9a6f6b5a8ff4fa26287486e3c0122f0029a49ffd255f4fed66743c26f16fb&width=5760&quality=80)
Well respected by the pusher community.
Quote from: MUBurrow on November 04, 2025, 09:53:17 PMBieber opts in at $16 million. Really surprising - he had a $4 million buyout. If he had opted out, I would have thought the Blue Jays would have gladly given him $15+ AAV on a new deal if he wanted to stay there.
Surprising. But I kind of get it. He could probably have gotten a $100MM contractHe's working back from Tommy John. And his last full season with Cleveland was alright. But pitch a full year with a good to very good team like the Jays, pitch like he did to end this year, closer to his 2022 production, and he's looking at more like a 5 year, $150MM deal next year. If he feels good about his arm and his progress and that the market is a bit soft this year ahead of the CBA, then it actually looks pretty wise. 31 for an ace going into FA next year is very much in his prime.
Quote from: JWags85 on November 05, 2025, 10:49:51 AMSurprising. But I kind of get it. He could probably have gotten a $100MM contractHe's working back from Tommy John. And his last full season with Cleveland was alright. But pitch a full year with a good to very good team like the Jays, pitch like he did to end this year, closer to his 2022 production, and he's looking at more like a 5 year, $150MM deal next year. If he feels good about his arm and his progress and that the market is a bit soft this year ahead of the CBA, then it actually looks pretty wise. 31 for an ace going into FA next year is very much in his prime.
Plus - and I know this might sound crazy - maybe Bieber actually likes being a Toronto Blue Jay.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on November 04, 2025, 01:43:44 PMSpending stupidly is worst than not spending in many circumstances.
The Brewers matching the deal Adames got would have been bad money spent.
Avoiding risk completely is a problem.
Oh I agree. I was mostly just trying to contrast my experience with the cubs fan complaint I was responding to.
I'll admit to basically having transitioned to "mostly-unplugged dad" phase of fandom where I'll kinda grumble "they oughta sign a bat!" or "I wish they could reach a deal with Freddy" even though I know in my brain that "signing a bat" or trading for a bat or being the last longterm contract a starter signs and chasing those personnel decisions is antithetical to the organization's philosophy.
But again, I mostly was saying the prevailing complaint is less "wahh the big rich cubs and dodgers out spend us!" and more "dangit Mark, pay the man his money."
But for people who take comfort in thinking the Brewers fandom is the former, whatever gets you through the offseason. By all means.
Quote from: jficke13 on November 05, 2025, 03:45:40 PMOh I agree. I was mostly just trying to contrast my experience with the cubs fan complaint I was responding to.
I'll admit to basically having transitioned to "mostly-unplugged dad" phase of fandom where I'll kinda grumble "they oughta sign a bat!" or "I wish they could reach a deal with Freddy" even though I know in my brain that "signing a bat" or trading for a bat or being the last longterm contract a starter signs and chasing those personnel decisions is antithetical to the organization's philosophy.
But again, I mostly was saying the prevailing complaint is less "wahh the big rich cubs and dodgers out spend us!" and more "dangit Mark, pay the man his money."
But for people who take comfort in thinking the Brewers fandom is the former, whatever gets you through the offseason. By all means.
Mark takes a lot of abuse from fans about his spending and some of it is justified! But the man overpaid Matt Garza, Jeff Suppan and Kyle Lohse chasing 85 wins.
Rockies have hired Paul DePodesta as their head of baseball operations
Prince Harry apologized to the people of Canada for wearing a Dodgers cap during the World Series.
I'm serious. (https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/royal-family/article/i-was-under-duress-prince-harry-apologizes-to-canada-for-wearing-la-dodgers-hat-during-world-series/)
This is lamer than when Hillary was pretending to be a Yankee fan.
Quote from: The Sultan on November 06, 2025, 03:49:38 PMPrince Harry apologized to the people of Canada for wearing a Dodgers cap during the World Series.
I'm serious. (https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/royal-family/article/i-was-under-duress-prince-harry-apologizes-to-canada-for-wearing-la-dodgers-hat-during-world-series/)
This is lamer than when Hillary was pretending to be a Yankee fan.
Geez, it's not like he went to a party dressed like a Nazi.
Clase gave up his career, going to prison for a long time, all for $12k.
Quote from: Dish on November 09, 2025, 12:51:00 PMClase gave up his career, going to prison for a long time, all for $12k.
For that amount it has to be a blackmail situation, right? 12K is crazy
Jeff Passan is reporting that the first free-agent signing of this cycle will be Josh Naylor re-upping with Seattle on a 5-year deal.
Quote from: MU82 on November 17, 2025, 09:13:57 AMJeff Passan is reporting that the first free-agent signing of this cycle will be Josh Naylor re-upping with Seattle on a 5-year deal.
5/92.5 feels like safe business by the M's. I'd take the under on him ever topping 20 SBs again and the defense is bad, but as a hitter he does pretty much everything right. He'll turn 29 in the middle of next season - no reason he can't hit in the .280s with low 20s bombs and low strikeout numbers over the life of that deal.
EDIT: Per ESPN, Naylor's statcast metrics have him as a better than average defensive 1B in each of the last four years. Yet per fangraphs, WAR has him at -31 defensively (!) over that time. Its a very strange "large man is quick" profile.
Quote from: MUBurrow on November 17, 2025, 07:35:05 PM5/92.5 feels like safe business by the M's. I'd take the under on him ever topping 20 SBs again and the defense is bad, but as a hitter he does pretty much everything right. He'll turn 29 in the middle of next season - no reason he can't hit in the .280s with low 20s bombs and low strikeout numbers over the life of that deal.
I actually was pleasantly surprised with the number of very good plays he turned in at first base after Seattle got him. He booted a couple of routine-ish plays, but overall that's not much of a concern for me. At 28, he should just be entering his prime, and I expect him to be a solid middle-of-the-order hitter for several years.
But yeah, the stolen base thing ... how freaky was that?
Quote from: MU82 on November 18, 2025, 11:23:10 AMBut yeah, the stolen base thing ... how freaky was that?
Just the weirdest thing. The same ESPN article says that he has a 3rd percentile sprint speed. I don't know if you could steal 30 bags with a 3% sprint speed guy in The Show if you tried.
Now the M's need to sign Bregman.
Quote from: 18thandWells on November 18, 2025, 11:30:30 AMNow the M's need to sign Bregman.
That would be lovely, but I doubt they'll get in a bidding war for him, and supposedly the Mets and Cubs (among others) are after him.
Quote from: MU82 on November 18, 2025, 11:42:31 AMThat would be lovely, but I doubt they'll get in a bidding war for him, and supposedly the Mets and Cubs (among others) are after him.
I think the Mets resign Alonso as their offseason "splash," the Cubs keep Charlie Kirk at 3B.
Woodruff accepted his qualifying offer from the Milwaukee Brewers baseball club. Huh.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on November 18, 2025, 02:52:07 PMWoodruff accepted his qualifying offer from the Milwaukee Brewers baseball club. Huh.
Might as well just trade the farm for Skubal and let them all walk after this year.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on November 18, 2025, 02:52:07 PMWoodruff accepted his qualifying offer from the Milwaukee Brewers baseball club. Huh.
Paying $32M, (including the $10m buyout he was getting anyway), sounds like a lot for up to one healthy season of Brandon Woodruff. This must be another example of how small market teams must be shrewd.
Quote from: 18thandWells on November 18, 2025, 03:47:15 PMPaying $32M, (including the $10m buyout he was getting anyway), sounds like a lot for up to one healthy season of Brandon Woodruff. This must be another example of how small market teams must be shrewd.
Are you saying the Brewers haven't been shrewd? They've had years where they have increased payroll and spent extra.
Quote from: 18thandWells on November 18, 2025, 03:47:15 PMPaying $32M, (including the $10m buyout he was getting anyway), sounds like a lot for up to one healthy season of Brandon Woodruff. This must be another example of how small market teams must be shrewd.
A multi-year deal can still be negotiated, maybe knock the AAV by adding a couple of years.
The $10M buyout was supposedly on last years books since it was likely to be taken. It is a lot but it's also hard to replace him for less than that. Not really such a thing as a bad 1 year contract
Don't you need to make the Qualifying Offer for a draft pick? I honestly don't know if he was expected to accept.
Quote from: cheebs09 on November 18, 2025, 08:37:27 PMDon't you need to make the Qualifying Offer for a draft pick? I honestly don't know if he was expected to accept.
I believe a QO has to be made and declined by the player in order for the team to gain a Compensatory Pick. I also think the placement of the comp pick depends on whether or not the club participates in revenue sharing, (16 teams?), and whether or not the player ultimately signs for over/under $50 million.
Basically, the Dodgers sign whomever they want and are ruining MLB.
Quote from: 18thandWells on November 18, 2025, 08:58:17 PMI believe a QO has to be made and declined by the player in order for the team to gain a Compensatory Pick. I also think the placement of the comp pick depends on whether or not the club participates in revenue sharing, (16 teams?), and whether or not the player ultimately signs for over/under $50 million.
Basically, the Dodgers sign whomever they want and are ruining MLB.
Nobody said they're ruining the MLB. People have said no salary cap in baseball is absurd. And it is.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 18, 2025, 11:38:48 PMNobody said they're ruining the MLB. People have said no salary cap in baseball is absurd. And it is.
NFL-style revenue sharing is all MLB needs. But that would require owners of the 5-10 richest teams to make sacrifices for the good of the game. While they count their billions, they prefer to tell the players to make sacrifices.
Yeah, again all a salary cap does is give owners a reason not to pay the players. More centralized revenue distribution is the much easier way to solve this issue. The players would still have to agree, but throw in a salary floor, and my guess is that they'd be on board.
Honestly at this point in time, I am not sure the NFL or NBA actually needs a salary cap as long as revenue distribution is relatively equal. It enriches the owners more than the players.
Quote from: The Sultan on November 19, 2025, 09:17:06 AMYeah, again all a salary cap does is give owners a reason not to pay the players. More centralized revenue distribution is the much easier way to solve this issue. The players would still have to agree, but throw in a salary floor, and my guess is that they'd be on board.
Honestly at this point in time, I am not sure the NFL or NBA actually needs a salary cap as long as revenue distribution is relatively equal. It enriches the owners more than the players.
100%.
The owners want all the onus to be on the players, and they want a salary cap to protect owners from other owners.
Totally fine with a better rev share system as a solution, too.
Quote from: The Sultan on November 19, 2025, 09:17:06 AMYeah, again all a salary cap does is give owners a reason not to pay the players. More centralized revenue distribution is the much easier way to solve this issue. The players would still have to agree, but throw in a salary floor, and my guess is that they'd be on board.
Honestly at this point in time, I am not sure the NFL or NBA actually needs a salary cap as long as revenue distribution is relatively equal. It enriches the owners more than the players.
Right, and for all intents, the NBA has so many exceptions and legal circumventions that it doesn't really have a salary cap. There are costs with going over the cap, but nobody is losing out on players they really want because of the cap.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 19, 2025, 10:27:57 AMTotally fine with a better rev share system as a solution, too.
Not opposed, but a much bigger problem (IMO) than the revenue sharing system is that there's no mechanism that force owners to spend the shared revenue.
According to numbers I've seen, MLB teams pool 48% of their local revenues and divide them evenly, which works out to about $110 million per club. Add in the $90 million each receives in national revenues, and teams have a $200 million baseline to work with even before touching the other 52% of their local revenues.
And yet only 12 teams exceeded $200 million in payroll last season. That's inexcusable.
Obviously there are tons of other costs associated with running an MLB team. The two teams owned by public corps. - and therefore with somewhat open books - are the Blue Jays and Braves. According to their 2023 reports, non-baseball operating costs were $134 million and $137 million, respectively.
Until the owners are forced to spend more of the revenue they're making, there's no real justification for a cap. It'll merely be a tool to artificially depress wages.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 19, 2025, 10:48:20 AMNot opposed, but a much bigger problem (IMO) than the revenue sharing system is that there's no mechanism that force owners to spend the shared revenue.
According to numbers I've seen, MLB teams pool 48% of their local revenues and divide them evenly, which works out to about $110 million per club. Add in the $90 million each receives in national revenues, and teams have a $200 million baseline to work with even before touching the other 52% of their local revenues.
And yet only 12 teams exceeded $200 million in payroll last season. That's inexcusable.
Obviously there are tons of other costs associated with running an MLB team. The two teams owned by public corps. - and therefore with somewhat open books - are the Blue Jays and Braves. According to their 2023 reports, non-baseball operating costs were $134 million and $137 million, respectively.
Until the owners are forced to spend more of the revenue they're making, there's no real justification for a cap. It'll merely be a tool to artificially depress wages.
Yup. Very good points.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 19, 2025, 10:48:20 AMNot opposed, but a much bigger problem (IMO) than the revenue sharing system is that there's no mechanism that force owners to spend the shared revenue.
According to numbers I've seen, MLB teams pool 48% of their local revenues and divide them evenly, which works out to about $110 million per club. Add in the $90 million each receives in national revenues, and teams have a $200 million baseline to work with even before touching the other 52% of their local revenues.
And yet only 12 teams exceeded $200 million in payroll last season. That's inexcusable.
Obviously there are tons of other costs associated with running an MLB team. The two teams owned by public corps. - and therefore with somewhat open books - are the Blue Jays and Braves. According to their 2023 reports, non-baseball operating costs were $134 million and $137 million, respectively.
Until the owners are forced to spend more of the revenue they're making, there's no real justification for a cap. It'll merely be a tool to artificially depress wages.
Only for some context, NFL caps salaries at 48% and NBA at 51% of revenues. Also, per AI:
Overall league average: Recent reports show MLB player salaries as a percentage of revenue have been in the 47–50% range.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on November 21, 2025, 01:01:30 PMOnly for some context, NFL caps salaries at 48% and NBA at 51% of revenues. Also, per AI: Overall league average: Recent reports show MLB player salaries as a percentage of revenue have been in the 47–50% range.
LOL, this makes my point. Salary caps really just screw the players. NFL players make 48% of revenues? That's nuts.
Quote from: The Sultan on November 21, 2025, 01:30:49 PMLOL, this makes my point. Salary caps really just screw the players. NFL players make 48% of revenues? That's nuts.
I pay to see the owners
Quote from: The Sultan on November 21, 2025, 01:30:49 PMLOL, this makes my point. Salary caps really just screw the players. NFL players make 48% of revenues? That's nuts.
Maybe. I see your point but salary caps paired with salary minimums may, or may not, be beneficial to players.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on November 21, 2025, 01:37:18 PMMaybe. I see your point but salary caps paired with salary minimums may, or may not, be beneficial to players.
Maybe? People tune in to watch the players. What do owners do to earn 52% of the revenues...besides get some form of government to pay for the stadium where the games take place?
Quote from: The Sultan on November 21, 2025, 01:40:20 PMMaybe? People tune in to watch the players. What do owners do to earn 52% of the revenues...besides get some form of government to pay for the stadium where the games take place?
Because in this country we subsidize the billionaire class because we are all just temporarily embarrassed billionaires, deep down.
Quote from: The Sultan on November 21, 2025, 01:40:20 PMMaybe? People tune in to watch the players. What do owners do to earn 52% of the revenues...besides get some form of government to pay for the stadium where the games take place?
So you didn't really mean to state "
Salary caps really just screw the players.". You believe the players unions are settling for too little of the revenue?
Quote from: WhiteTrash on November 21, 2025, 01:47:07 PMSo you didn't really mean to state "Salary caps really just screw the players.". You believe the players unions are settling for too little of the revenue?
How about both!
Quote from: The Sultan on November 21, 2025, 01:47:38 PMHow about both!
How and why the NFLPA, NBAPA or MLBPA haven't hired you is a great mystery. ;)
nm
Quote from: WhiteTrash on November 21, 2025, 01:47:07 PMSo you didn't really mean to state "Salary caps really just screw the players.". You believe the players unions are settling for too little of the revenue?
I mean, they might be. The NFLPA is notoriously weak relative to other players unions. The MLBPA has never lost a work stoppage. The NFLPA has never won one. And, how is it that NFL players still don't get fully guaranteed contracts?
But maybe not. Maybe the inherent operational costs of an NFL franchise are greater than other sports (larger rosters and staffs, more injuries) and justify the owners keeping more revenue.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 19, 2025, 10:48:20 AMNot opposed, but a much bigger problem (IMO) than the revenue sharing system is that there's no mechanism that force owners to spend the shared revenue.
According to numbers I've seen, MLB teams pool 48% of their local revenues and divide them evenly, which works out to about $110 million per club. Add in the $90 million each receives in national revenues, and teams have a $200 million baseline to work with even before touching the other 52% of their local revenues.
And yet only 12 teams exceeded $200 million in payroll last season. That's inexcusable.
Obviously there are tons of other costs associated with running an MLB team. The two teams owned by public corps. - and therefore with somewhat open books - are the Blue Jays and Braves. According to their 2023 reports, non-baseball operating costs were $134 million and $137 million, respectively.
Until the owners are forced to spend more of the revenue they're making, there's no real justification for a cap. It'll merely be a tool to artificially depress wages.
There are many things we don't know about major league sports teams. For example, what's the costs of the minor league system/player development? Or, how much debt service is required of a particular owner. Most sports teams are bought with debt.
Also, how many partners have to be paid with net income after taxes? Who knows?
Ultimately, I'm opposed to a salary cap and I get why the players will fight it to the death. I would if I was them! The owners created this mess by expanding too much, which gives good players more leverage, by not consolidating all broadcast and cable/internet revenues and by simply paying ridiculous amounts of money to average players. Add to that the byzantine structure of the game for most of its first 110 years and the lessons that imparted on the players and this is a prescription for disaster.
Japanese pitching prospect Tatsuya Imai, who was posted this offseason and is No. 10 on The Athletic's Big Board, said yesterday he would rather beat the Dodgers than become the latest Japanese star to join them.
"Winning against a team like that and becoming a World Champion would be the most valuable thing in my life," the 27-year-old said in an interview with former MLB pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka.
Sonny Gray to the Red Sox in a trade.
Cubs draft pick and (two-time) White Sox playoff starter Dylan Cease signs a $210M contract with Toronto.
Kris Bryant still has three years, at $27M each, remaining on the 7-year, $182 million contract the Rockies gave him. He has never played more than 80 games for Colorado, and he's still hurt. The Athletic called it the worst contract given to any active ballplayer.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 25, 2025, 12:57:10 PMSonny Gray to the Red Sox in a trade.
Makes sense.
He will be 36 on Opening Day. St. Louis is undertaking the "R" word -- rebuild! They're not likely to be competitive this year or next, so why not get some strong prospects that can anchor your rotation for years from now?
Hopefully what the Cardinals received is greater than what they gave up!
Quote from: MU82 on December 01, 2025, 09:33:25 AMKris Bryant still has three years, at $27M each, remaining on the 7-year, $182 million contract the Rockies gave him. He has never played more than 80 games for Colorado, and he's still hurt. The Athletic called it the worst contract given to any active ballplayer.
I think some of us said so at the time.
Quote from: MU82 on November 25, 2025, 10:44:56 AMJapanese pitching prospect Tatsuya Imai, who was posted this offseason and is No. 10 on The Athletic's Big Board, said yesterday he would rather beat the Dodgers than become the latest Japanese star to join them.
"Winning against a team like that and becoming a World Champion would be the most valuable thing in my life," the 27-year-old said in an interview with former MLB pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka.
Brewers fans:
(https://c.tenor.com/nOCihXQRWJkAAAAC/tenor.gif)
Twins have flat out given up. Going to be so ugly. This state is cursed.
Quote from: The Sultan on December 04, 2025, 12:32:37 PMIt's the Somalis.
I will try harder not to be so political.
Quote from: Jay Bee on December 04, 2025, 06:33:40 AMTwins have flat out given up. Going to be so ugly. This state is cursed.
MLB players don't want to die.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 04, 2025, 05:06:05 PMMLB players don't want to die.
Should be safe after this week.
Jeff Kent voted into Hall of Fame by Contemporary Era committee.
https://www.mlb.com/news/contemporary-baseball-era-hall-of-fame-ballot-results-2026
Nobody else on the ballot came close to getting the 75% of votes needed, including the juicers.
Quote from: MU82 on December 07, 2025, 07:15:12 PMJeff Kent voted into Hall of Fame by Contemporary Era committee.
https://www.mlb.com/news/contemporary-baseball-era-hall-of-fame-ballot-results-2026
Nobody else on the ballot came close to getting the 75% of votes needed, including the juicers.
It's kinda cute that they pretend Kent wasn't a juicer.
Quote from: Jockey on December 07, 2025, 07:52:29 PMIt's kinda cute that they pretend Kent wasn't a juicer.
To say nothing of the fact that he was protected in the lineup by Bonds for much of his career.
Quote from: Jockey on December 07, 2025, 07:52:29 PMIt's kinda cute that they pretend Kent wasn't a juicer.
Thats the irony of the whole stance against juicing. They make examples out of the biggest and most notable ones (Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa) but basically ignore/overlook that most of the league was doing it to some extent at the time, Kent included.
Quote from: GB Warrior on December 07, 2025, 10:08:12 PMTo say nothing of the fact that he was protected in the lineup by Bonds for much of his career.
I mean, he played with Bonds less than half the seasons in his career. If you want to say his best years were with Bonds, then sure. Though he was really good the first few years away from SF when he was in Houston and LA.
ALso, I don't know if protected is the right phrase. He hit cleanup behind Bonds most of that MVP season. Certainly got more RBIs cause of pitching around Bonds, but he still absolutely raked and got the MVP over Bonds because of how huge he was in key spots.
(I was a 12/13/14 year old second baseman who figured out how to tweak my swing to finally hit for some power those early Kent years in SF, so I was a big fan for awhile 8-) )
That Kent is more deserving than Dale Murphy is pretty laughable.
Quote from: MU82 on December 08, 2025, 10:39:56 AMThat Kent is more deserving than Dale Murphy is pretty laughable.
To be fair, Kent's WAR is almost 10 pts higher than Murphy despite playing one less season. Mostly because Murphy went from a stud to really mediocre in the span of 2 years in his early 30s and was not good his last few years in the league (had a negative WAR his last 3 years I believe). Whereas Kent was a really consistent solid hitter up until his final season.
So while I don't agree that Murphy is greatly more deserving than Kent, I think its pretty absurd that Murphy isn't in regardless. Only multiple time MVPs not in the HoF besides Murphy are Roger Maris (who had 2 amazing years and a bunch of decent to good ones) and Juan Gonzalez (who had a very up and down career and also got dinged for steroid allegations). I think career WAR is what kills Murphy. He had a huge peak, but that back half of his career has him sitting around guys like Josh Donaldson, Curtis Granderson, Miguel Tejada, and Ryan Braun. All really good players, but outside of Braun, nobody with a real HOF shout.
Quote from: JWags85 on December 08, 2025, 01:33:48 PMTo be fair, Kent's WAR is almost 10 pts higher than Murphy despite playing one less season. Mostly because Murphy went from a stud to really mediocre in the span of 2 years in his early 30s and was not good his last few years in the league (had a negative WAR his last 3 years I believe). Whereas Kent was a really consistent solid hitter up until his final season.
So while I don't agree that Murphy is greatly more deserving than Kent, I think its pretty absurd that Murphy isn't in regardless. Only multiple time MVPs not in the HoF besides Murphy are Roger Maris (who had 2 amazing years and a bunch of decent to good ones) and Juan Gonzalez (who had a very up and down career and also got dinged for steroid allegations). I think career WAR is what kills Murphy. He had a huge peak, but that back half of his career has him sitting around guys like Josh Donaldson, Curtis Granderson, Miguel Tejada, and Ryan Braun. All really good players, but outside of Braun, nobody with a real HOF shout.
Good points. Murphy in his prime was his era's Mike Trout in his prime, but yes, his numbers fell off the cliff.
Huh.
If you would have told me ten years ago Kyle Schwarber would be signing $150M contracts, I'd be very surprised.
Quote from: 18thandWells on December 09, 2025, 10:44:49 AMIf you would have told me ten years ago Kyle Schwarber would be signing $150M contracts, I'd be very surprised.
How about if I told you the Dodgers' weak bullpen just added the best closer in baseball (that isn't in the middle of a gambling scandal) without giving up a single prospect from their #1 farm system in baseball? Believable?
Quote from: wadesworld on December 09, 2025, 10:51:35 AMHow about if I told you the Dodgers' weak bullpen just added the best closer in baseball (that isn't in the middle of a gambling scandal) without giving up a single prospect from their #1 farm system in baseball? Believable?
1.) I'm sorry the Brewers scored 4 runs in the NLCS. The World Series was incredible; maybe try to make that your lasting memories of the '25 playoffs?
2.) Why did the Dodgers have a weak bullpen last year? They recently get rich?
3.) That is a hell of a parenthetical.
I saw this:
Quote from: wadesworld on December 09, 2025, 10:38:36 AMHuh.
And this:
Quote from: 18thandWells on December 09, 2025, 10:44:49 AMIf you would have told me ten years ago Kyle Schwarber would be signing $150M contracts, I'd be very surprised.
... and I did a Google search of
Schwarber Dodgers, thinking he had signed with L.A.
Quote from: 18thandWells on December 09, 2025, 10:44:49 AMIf you would have told me ten years ago Kyle Schwarber would be signing $150M contracts, I'd be very surprised.
10 years ago? That was his rookie year in 2015. He was absolutely showing flashes and he was great in the playoffs. And then coming back from injury in 2016, he raked in the WS. He had all the makings of a potential slugging star.
Now in 5 years ago in 2020 before the Cubs traded him? Sure. He was not playing great. But even still, given what he did in 2018-2019, most Cubs fans were sad to see him go cause he was still in short of his prime and had so much potential.
I don't think I ever expected him to finish second in the MVP race like he did last year, but given the premium the league has put on 3 outcome hitting, him getting a big payday never seemed that crazy.
Saw yesterday that NYY and NYM both inquired on Trevor Megill's availability. I think Megill is the coolest and would hate to see him dealt, but based on the Diaz and Williams deals, the price looks higher today than it would have a couple weeks ago.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 09, 2025, 10:51:35 AMHow about if I told you the Dodgers' weak bullpen just added the best closer in baseball (that isn't in the middle of a gambling scandal) without giving up a single prospect from their #1 farm system in baseball? Believable?
Good to see a team that reinvests its revenues into the ballclub.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 09, 2025, 12:22:59 PMGood to see a team that reinvests its revenues into the ballclub.
The Cardinals were 15th in revenue in 2024, dead center of the 30 teams. If the Dodgers reinvested, say, 47.4% of their revenue back into their payroll (which is what the Twins, at 15th in Payroll/Revenue, "reinvest"), the Cardinals would have to reinvest 95.6% of it's revenue to have the same payroll.
Or, put another way, if the Cardinals reinvested the same 73% of their revenue that the Dodgers do, their payroll would still have been $276.7MM behind the Dodgers' 2025 payroll.
Nothing wrong with the system at all.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 09, 2025, 10:51:35 AMHow about if I told you the Dodgers' weak bullpen just added the best closer in baseball (that isn't in the middle of a gambling scandal) without giving up a single prospect from their #1 farm system in baseball? Believable?
Makes me hate the Dodgers even more.
Signing with LA for only $3M more, I think Edwin just wanted to leave.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/sherman-the-mets-offer-for-edwin-diaz-was-three-years-at-v0-CU9wCyLqXtLPVZOYVQ-obLAwIqQECgFZ-fCXJpzlC3M.jpeg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=249e37b775dc653e160fdca55b75eae1d8b21211)
Quote from: wadesworld on December 09, 2025, 02:09:50 PMThe Cardinals were 15th in revenue in 2024, dead center of the 30 teams. If the Dodgers reinvested, say, 47.4% of their revenue back into their payroll (which is what the Twins, at 15th in Payroll/Revenue, "reinvest"), the Cardinals would have to reinvest 95.6% of it's revenue to have the same payroll.
Or, put another way, if the Cardinals reinvested the same 73% of their revenue that the Dodgers do, their payroll would still have been $276.7MM behind the Dodgers' 2025 payroll.
Nothing wrong with the system at all.
Per Forbes, the Dodgers operating income was $21 million in 2024, good for 13th in MLB.
You know who made more?
The Brewers at $24 million.
Reds, $29 million
Tigers, $30 million
Rays, $32 million
Marlins, $38 million
Pirates, $47 million
When small market teams stop raking in profits that exceed those of the world champs, I'll take their cries of poor more seriously. Most of these teams receive far more via revenue sharing than they invest in payroll.
I'm not opposed to additional revenue sharing, but some of these teams aren't using the revenue they already get on payroll. What makes you think that would change with more?
MLB should be more interested in getting the frugal teams to spend more than putting restrictions on the big spenders.
As for the Cardinals, maybe they need to put a better product on the field. Their yearly attendance has dropped by more than a million over the past decade while their payroll has remained largely stagnant. Perhaps there's a correlation?
The Schwarber contract gives the players' union yet another argument against a salary cap. Numerous teams - including the Pirates! - were competing to throw outrageous sums of money at a DH, and he ended up getting a humongous contract that will take him into his late 30s.
The money is there, as is the willingness to spend it. What incentive do the players have to help protect the owners from each other?
I had a muted ten minute sabbatical quietly watching Roch Cholowsky YouTube clips just now.
Quote from: MU82 on December 09, 2025, 04:17:56 PMThe Schwarber contract gives the players' union yet another argument against a salary cap. Numerous teams - including the Pirates! - were competing to throw outrageous sums of money at a DH, and he ended up getting a humongous contract that will take him into his late 30s.
The money is there, as is the willingness to spend it. What incentive do the players have to help protect the owners from each other?
Just a devastating loss that Schwarber didn't want to go to Pittsburgh for 3 years/$300,000
Quote from: Dish on December 09, 2025, 05:08:30 PMI had a muted ten minute sabbatical quietly watching Roch Cholowsky YouTube clips just now.
Can we celebrate?
I think Roch is the strongest lock for 1-1 since Rutschman, but then again, this time a year ago it was definitely going to be Ethan Holliday or Jace Laviolette.
Assuming he's the pick (or Emerson, for that matter) that loads up the system with four high-end shortstops/prospects under 24. Interesting to see who moves positions and/or is dealt. Guessing Montgomery moves to third, Bonemer to the outfield and Carlson gets traded.
nm
Quote from: Pakuni on December 09, 2025, 05:20:38 PMCan we celebrate?
I think Roch is the strongest lock for 1-1 since Rutschman, but then again, this time a year ago it was definitely going to be Ethan Holliday or Jace Laviolette.
Assuming he's the pick (or Emerson, for that matter) that loads up the system with four high-end shortstops 24 and under. Interesting to see who moves positions and/or is dealt. Guessing Montgomery moves to third, Bonemer to the outfield and Carlson gets traded.
It'd be a good problem to have with having too many great SS prospects. With no disrespect to Meidroth, I wonder if they would move Carlson to 2B.
Roch/both Montgomery's/Carlson/Bonemer/Teel/Quero is a heck of a core moving forward.
Quote from: Dish on December 09, 2025, 05:47:28 PMIt'd be a good problem to have with having too many great SS prospects. With no disrespect to Meidroth, I wonder if they would move Carlson to 2B.
Roch/both Montgomery's/Carlson/Bonemer/Teel/Quero is a heck of a core moving forward.
I think he definitely could play second (probably Bonemer as well), but I'm wondering that with his one elite tool being his glove, he might have more value for another team at short, and get the Sox a decent return.
Either way, you're right ... good problem to have.
White Sox are hoping to draft "the next Andrew Vaughn."
Thank you Pope Leo.
Love, White Sox Fans
Quote from: Pakuni on December 09, 2025, 03:37:31 PMPer Forbes, the Dodgers operating income was $21 million in 2024, good for 13th in MLB.
You know who made more?
The Brewers at $24 million.
Reds, $29 million
Tigers, $30 million
Rays, $32 million
Marlins, $38 million
Pirates, $47 million
When small market teams stop raking in profits that exceed those of the world champs, I'll take their cries of poor more seriously. Most of these teams receive far more via revenue sharing than they invest in payroll.
I'm not opposed to additional revenue sharing, but some of these teams aren't using the revenue they already get on payroll. What makes you think that would change with more?
MLB should be more interested in getting the frugal teams to spend more than putting restrictions on the big spenders.
As for the Cardinals, maybe they need to put a better product on the field. Their yearly attendance has dropped by more than a million over the past decade while their payroll has remained largely stagnant. Perhaps there's a correlation?
I'm 100% on board with a salary floor, and that would be necessary with any change to revenue sharing or adding a salary cap. Have never argued otherwise.
But cool. The Brewers could shoot for putting all but 1 penny of their profit back into their roster and they'll almost catch the Dodgers in payroll. They only fall $388MM shy of the Dodgers if you add the $24MM profit the Brewers made all back into their payroll. That'd get them all the way to 29% of the Dodgers payroll! So close!
Think of how absolutely absurd the system is that the Brewers could spend every penny of profit that they make and still only be able to get to 29% of what the Dodgers spend on their payroll.
Quote from: 18thandWells on December 09, 2025, 06:29:06 PMWhite Sox are hoping to draft "the next Andrew Vaughn."
They'll get the next Brien Taylor
Quote from: wadesworld on December 10, 2025, 08:56:06 AMI'm 100% on board with a salary floor, and that would be necessary with any change to revenue sharing or adding a salary cap. Have never argued otherwise.
But cool. The Brewers could shoot for putting all but 1 penny of their profit back into their roster and they'll almost catch the Dodgers in payroll. They only fall $388MM shy of the Dodgers if you add the $24MM profit the Brewers made all back into their payroll. That'd get them all the way to 29% of the Dodgers payroll! So close!
Think of how absolutely absurd the system is that the Brewers could spend every penny of profit that they make and still only be able to get to 29% of what the Dodgers spend on their payroll.
The issue here is all of the uses of the word "could." Any argument in favor of a salary cap is in bad faith until clubs prioritize winning over clearing >$25 million / year.
Quote from: MUBurrow on December 10, 2025, 09:55:03 AMThe issue here is all of the uses of the word "could." Any argument in favor of a salary cap is in bad faith until clubs prioritize winning over clearing >$25 million / year.
I think the Brewers have done very well in attempting to win baseball games. I guess they could go out and trade for a guy like Eugenio Suarez so they maybe lose 4-1 to the Dodgers in the NLCS instead of 4-0? And then lose him to someone that can pay him more money, while giving up prospects to get him for a couple of months. Unlike the Dodgers, who just wait until free agency, pay more than anyone can, and keep all of their prospects.
Again, what would spending every penny of profit do for the Brewers? They could win the most games in the MLB regular season and then lose in the NLCS, kind of like they did while not spending every penny of profit.
Without taking a loss, they cannot even reach 30% of the Dodgers' payroll. If you think that system is a solid system for a professional sports I'm not sure what to tell you. Why would owners spend all of their profit if there's no salary floor and even if they spent every penny they would be making, some would still close to half a billion dollars short of what the top payrolls in the MLB are?
Quote from: wadesworld on December 10, 2025, 08:56:06 AMI'm 100% on board with a salary floor, and that would be necessary with any change to revenue sharing or adding a salary cap. Have never argued otherwise.
But cool. The Brewers could shoot for putting all but 1 penny of their profit back into their roster and they'll almost catch the Dodgers in payroll. They only fall $388MM shy of the Dodgers if you add the $24MM profit the Brewers made all back into their payroll. That'd get them all the way to 29% of the Dodgers payroll! So close!
Think of how absolutely absurd the system is that the Brewers could spend every penny of profit that they make and still only be able to get to 29% of what the Dodgers spend on their payroll.
Kind of irrelevant, but I think your math is off a bit.
The Brewers' projected 2026 payroll is $136 million. The Dodgers' is $359 million. Add $24 million to the Brewers = $160 million. That's about 45%, not 29%.
That said, nobody disputes that there are imbalances that can be better addressed. But the primary results of a salary cap would be to 1) artificially depress wages and 2) enrich poorly run franchises to the detriment of those that are run well.
What some people seem unwilling to recognize is that in addition to some of their market advantages, the Dodgers have money to burn because they're an exceptionally well run franchise. And punishing that success by taking their money and giving it to franchises that DGAF (looking at you, Pittsburgh and Miami) is no less unfair than the discrepancies you're talking about.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 10, 2025, 10:41:07 AMKind of irrelevant, but I think you're math is off a bit.
The Brewers' projected 2026 payroll is $136 million. The Dodgers' is $359 million. Add $24 million to the Brewers = $160 million. That's about 45%, not 29%.
I think he's adding Luxury Tax to "payroll."
I've never run any business, including any MLB franchise.
Pete Alonzo to the Orioles for 5 years $155mil.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on December 10, 2025, 12:04:14 PMPete Alonzo to the Orioles for 5 years $155mil.
Huh. Where'd they find the revenue?
A salary floor and better revenue-sharing program won't solve everything, but they are the best potential solutions. If enacted, they would require the owners to work with each other, and to spend the revenue-sharing money they are handed instead of pocketing it. And it doesn't require the players to help save them from themselves.
Quote from: MU82 on December 10, 2025, 01:17:37 PMA salary floor and better revenue-sharing program won't solve everything, but they are the best potential solutions. If enacted, they would require the owners to work with each other, and to spend the revenue-sharing money they are handed instead of pocketing it. And it doesn't require the players to help save them from themselves.
MLB spend basically the same % of revenue on payroll as NFL and NBA. A salary floor will not help the players.
A hard cap with a floor could address competitive balance.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 10, 2025, 01:24:00 PMMLB spend basically the same % of revenue on payroll as NFL and NBA. A salary floor will not help the players.
A hard cap with a floor could address competitive balance.
A salary floor absolutely would help the players. Among other things, it would require the teams that just pocket revenue-sharing money to put it into their payroll.
The cruddy teams might spend the money poorly, but it would go to players, mostly those at the bottom of the salary ladder.
Quote from: MU82 on December 10, 2025, 01:28:06 PMA salary floor absolutely would help the players. Among other things, it would require the teams that just pocket revenue-sharing money to put it into their payroll.
The cruddy teams might spend the money poorly, but it would go to players, mostly those at the bottom of the salary ladder.
There will never be a floor without a cap. I will die on that hill everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
I think MLB will be better off with a cap/floor but not the players as a whole.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 10, 2025, 01:38:06 PMThere will never be a floor without a cap. I will die on that hill everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
I think MLB will be better off with a cap/floor but not the players as a whole.
I wouldn't doubt that you are correct, because there are enough owners who are satisfied pocketing cash and not trying to win.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 10, 2025, 01:38:06 PMThere will never be a floor without a cap. I will die on that hill everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
I think MLB will be better off with a cap/floor but not the players as a whole.
The thing is, MLB is fine as it is. Revenues are up. Attendance is up. TV ratings are up. Fans enjoy the product.
Quote from: MU82 on December 10, 2025, 01:50:28 PMI wouldn't doubt that you are correct, because there are enough owners who are satisfied pocketing cash and not trying to win.
Thank God JR is not one of those owners. >:(
Congrats to new MLB Hall of Famer Joe Buck.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 09, 2025, 03:37:31 PMPer Forbes, the Dodgers operating income was $21 million in 2024, good for 13th in MLB.
You know who made more?
The Brewers at $24 million.
Reds, $29 million
Tigers, $30 million
Rays, $32 million
Marlins, $38 million
Pirates, $47 million
When small market teams stop raking in profits that exceed those of the world champs, I'll take their cries of poor more seriously. Most of these teams receive far more via revenue sharing than they invest in payroll.
I'm not opposed to additional revenue sharing, but some of these teams aren't using the revenue they already get on payroll. What makes you think that would change with more?
MLB should be more interested in getting the frugal teams to spend more than putting restrictions on the big spenders.
As for the Cardinals, maybe they need to put a better product on the field. Their yearly attendance has dropped by more than a million over the past decade while their payroll has remained largely stagnant. Perhaps there's a correlation?
I missed the part in which wages weren't incorporated in operating income. This is largely disingenuous because it ignores the expenses associated with running a franchise that are and aren't avoidable...namely, you can avoid paying players, but there are some fixed or rigid costs that can't be and are largely uniform across franchises.
I could tell the Brewers to invest $24M extra to pay the next Blake Snell that is good but injury-prone. And they could do that and still be at a break-even point. But when that investment doesn't pay off, I don't have another $24M to reinvest for another bite at the apple. So while I could do that, no reasonable business person would because it destroys your liquidity and is predicated on everything going exactly to plan. The result is that some teams can afford to take these risks because the ratio of variable to fixed costs is much much higher. Rhys Hoskins is a perfect example of what the Brewers can do. Exorbitant one-year (plus option but whatever) expensive deals that - if they don't pay off - don't destroy your liquidity. This isn't in the same universe as what we are seeing in large market teams.
The flip side to all of this is the Pirates, who get fat on revenue sharing and TV contracts, product be damned.
Both sides of this need to be closed and addressed, as there is absolutely no reason for anyone to agree for more revenue sharing without the benefit of parity or competitive balance.
Alonso is going to be a good example of this as a contract that would destroy a team like the Brewers but be absorbable by wealthier franchises. I think it's a stupid contract for any team for what it's worth.
Quote from: GB Warrior on December 10, 2025, 06:58:03 PMI missed the part in which wages weren't incorporated in operating income. This is largely disingenuous because it ignores the expenses associated with running a franchise that are and aren't avoidable...namely, you can avoid paying players, but there are some fixed or rigid costs that can't be and are largely uniform across franchises.
I could tell the Brewers to invest $24M extra to pay the next Blake Snell that is good but injury-prone. And they could do that and still be at a break-even point. But when that investment doesn't pay off, I don't have another $24M to reinvest for another bite at the apple. So while I could do that, no reasonable business person would because it destroys your liquidity and is predicated on everything going exactly to plan. The result is that some teams can afford to take these risks because the ratio of variable to fixed costs is much much higher. Rhys Hoskins is a perfect example of what the Brewers can do. Exorbitant one-year (plus option but whatever) expensive deals that - if they don't pay off - don't destroy your liquidity. This isn't in the same universe as what we are seeing in large market teams.
The flip side to all of this is the Pirates, who get fat on revenue sharing and TV contracts, product be damned.
Both sides of this need to be closed and addressed, as there is absolutely no reason for anyone to agree for more revenue sharing without the benefit of parity or competitive balance.
Alonso is going to be a good example of this as a contract that would destroy a team like the Brewers but be absorbable by wealthier franchises. I think it's a stupid contract for any team for what it's worth.
How many players made more than the Brewers?
Quote from: GB Warrior on December 10, 2025, 06:58:03 PMI missed the part in which wages weren't incorporated in operating income.
Not sure what you mean by this. Explain further, please.
QuoteThis is largely disingenuous because it ignores the expenses associated with running a franchise that are and aren't avoidable...namely, you can avoid paying players, but there are some fixed or rigid costs that can't be and are largely uniform across franchises.
No doubt there are fixed costs that are the same/similar across the league. There are also costs that are going to fluctuate from market to market. Think taxes, facility costs, non-baseball employee wages, travel, etc. On that, I think we can agree running a multibillion dollar business in New York or Los Angeles is going to be much more costly than one in Milwaukee or St. Louis.
I bet a parking lot attendant at Dodgers Stadium makes a lot more than one at the Great American Ballpark. And the Mariners spend more on travel than the Guardians.
QuoteAlonso is going to be a good example of this as a contract that would destroy a team like the Brewers but be absorbable by wealthier franchises. I think it's a stupid contract for any team for what it's worth.
Wealthier franchises ... like the Orioles?
Orioles revenue: $338 million
Brewers revenue: $337 million
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/11/cnbcs-official-mlb-team-valuations-2025.html
Quote from: Pakuni on December 10, 2025, 09:06:31 PMNot sure what you mean by this. Explain further, please.
No doubt there are fixed costs that are the same/similar across the league. There are also costs that are going to fluctuate from market to market. Think taxes, facility costs, non-baseball employee wages, travel, etc. On that, I think we can agree running a multibillion dollar business in New York or Los Angeles is going to be much more costly than one in Milwaukee or St. Louis.
I bet a parking lot attendant at Dodgers Stadium makes a lot more than one at the Great American Ballpark. And the Mariners spend more on travel than the Guardians.
Wealthier franchises ... like the Orioles?
Orioles revenue: $338 million
Brewers revenue: $337 million
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/11/cnbcs-official-mlb-team-valuations-2025.html
I mean salaries are netted against revenue for purposes of operating income. Meaning, sure, I can net out to the same number but it's because I've spent an absurdly high number to whittle OI down to that number.
I won't argue about the Orioles, though it should be noted that they've operated as a top third market after Rubenstein's cash infusion. So if the answer is we just need wealthier owners, ok.
If you guys think there's going to be a salary cap after the next set of labor negotiations, I have a bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan I can sell you on the cheap. No way. No how. Not ever. Not even with a floor.
The ghost of Marvin Miller will haunt every player who agreed to that into eternity. Players who agreed to this will be condemned to listening to Branch Rickey and negotiating with George Steinbrenner forever.
To the "everything is negotiable" crowd, to the players, salary caps are non-negotiable absolutes. Steve Garvey would vow celibacy before the players give on salary caps. Charlie Finley, Pete Rose and Barry Bonds all will be in the Hall of Fame before the players agree to such nonsense.
The owners need to discipline themselves and maybe avoid anymore talent diluting expansion. Every time they expand, baseball owners ultimately increase their costs because they expand the demand for marginally talented players. Tell Nashville, Charlotte and Portland to pound sand.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 09, 2025, 03:37:31 PMAs for the Cardinals, maybe they need to put a better product on the field. Their yearly attendance has dropped by more than a million over the past decade while their payroll has remained largely stagnant. Perhaps there's a correlation?
I could not agree with you more. But it doesn't just take payroll. Developing a good scouting system, an effective minor league training program and talented leadership at the major league level also works. That's what Chaim Bloom is trying to do.
The reason for the attendance drop-off in St. Louis is totally related to winning. Cardinal fans are willing to tolerate mediocre seasons when it's evident that the players and management are trying to win. We're not Cub fans, who will show up three million strong to watch Little League baseball.
When the front office shows they mean business and the team does the "little things" necessary to win, the fans will be back. So will the winning!
Quote from: dgies9156 on December 11, 2025, 10:15:24 AMTo the "everything is negotiable" crowd, to the players, salary caps are non-negotiable absolutes. Steve Garvey would vow celibacy before the players give on salary caps. Charlie Finley, Pete Rose and Barry Bonds all will be in the Hall of Fame before the players agree to such nonsense.
The idea that it is "nonsense" is harsh and completely overstating the position. MLB players get roughly the same % of revenue as sports with floors & caps. You could make a reasonable argument that a cap that provides a floor would guaranty against some unreasonable reduction of the share of revenue, as there is nothing to prevent owners from making salaries stagnant as revenues increase. Not likely or even remotely likely, but still possible.
reportedly the Tigers and Dodgers had conservations regarding a Skubal trade. But of course... :'( :(
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on December 11, 2025, 11:20:42 AMreportedly the Tigers and Dodgers had conservations regarding a Skubal trade. But of course... :'( :(
I'm sure they are having discussions. Most likely outcome is he stays for the year and then the Dodgers just sign him without giving up any prospects/players.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 11, 2025, 11:09:20 AMThe idea that it is "nonsense" is harsh and completely overstating the position. MLB players get roughly the same % of revenue as sports with floors & caps. You could make a reasonable argument that a cap that provides a floor would guaranty against some unreasonable reduction of the share of revenue, as there is nothing to prevent owners from making salaries stagnant as revenues increase. Not likely or even remotely likely, but still possible.
Once you open the door on a salary cap, there is no going back. If the owners insist on the players protecting the owners from themselves, there will be a long lockout that would damage the game significantly more than not having a salary cap ever would.
And then they'd end up settling after the long lockout - and they still won't have a salary cap. Because I'm confident saying it just won't happen.
Quote from: MU82 on December 11, 2025, 11:38:27 AMOnce you open the door on a salary cap, there is no going back. If the owners insist on the players protecting the owners from themselves, there will be a long lockout that would damage the game significantly more than not having a salary cap ever would.
And then they'd end up settling after the long lockout - and they still won't have a salary cap. Because I'm confident saying it just won't happen.
I have no doubt the cap will NOT happen in MLB, but the players have ended up with the same results as NBA and NFL. Competitive balance would be the benefit to the sport, but there seems to be no material benefit for all the players to not have the cap.
The NFL & NBA & NHL did not end up with caps/floors because the players are getting poor advice and representation. They valued competitive balance and a guaranteed floor on salaries. Both systems seem to work and result in the same outcome.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 11, 2025, 02:32:03 PMI have no doubt the cap will NOT happen in MLB, but the players have ended up with the same results as NBA and NFL. Competitive balance would be the benefit to the sport, but there seems to be no material benefit for all the players to not have the cap.
The NFL & NBA & NHL did not end up with caps/floors because the players are getting poor advice and representation. They valued competitive balance and a guaranteed floor on salaries. Both systems seem to work and result in the same outcome.
The material benefit to not having a cap is that you haven't started a precedent - one that could be potentially harmful to players' compensation long-term.
In the NFL, NBA and NHL, the unions aggressively fought salary caps, so much so that they were willing to lose major chunks of seasons. There was no "kumbaya, let's help the owners and everybody will benefit." Those unions simply were neither as powerful nor as unified as the MLBPA. The NFLPA was undercut by its management being cozy with NFL power brokers.
In the NHL, the salary cap definitely has muted salaries and has forced good teams to have to break themselves up; I doubt many players would say it has been a good thing for them. The NBA and especially NFL have grown revenues enough that by and large the caps have not hurt the players, at least not yet.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 11, 2025, 02:32:03 PMI have no doubt the cap will NOT happen in MLB, but the players have ended up with the same results as NBA and NFL. Competitive balance would be the benefit to the sport, but there seems to be no material benefit for all the players to not have the cap.
The NFL & NBA & NHL did not end up with caps/floors because the players are getting poor advice and representation. They valued competitive balance and a guaranteed floor on salaries. Both systems seem to work and result in the same outcome.
The NHL and NFL players did not go along with salary caps for the good of the sport. The NFL had multiple work stoppages over the issue and the NHL missed a half a season in the 90s and the entire 2004-05 season over it. And it's definitely depressed wages in both sports.
Prior to the cap, the average NHL payroll was $44 million, and seven clubs had payrolls above $60 million. The initial cap was $39 million, and the cap didn't exceed $60 million until 2012. That's tens of millions of losses for players.
Not sure what the argument for "competitive balance would be good for the sport" is based upon. Again, MLB had record revenues last year and both TV ratings and attendance are rising. The sport is doing just fine.
Moreover, the idea that the sport lacks competitive balance is overblown.
Since 2000, 15 different teams have won the World Series, i.e. half the league.
In the supposedly more competitively balanced NFL, there have been 14 different champions in the same time frame. NBA? 12. NHL? 14.
Quote from: MU82 on December 11, 2025, 02:52:29 PMThe material benefit to not having a cap is that you haven't started a precedent - one that could be potentially harmful to players' compensation long-term.
In the NFL, NBA and NHL, the unions aggressively fought salary caps, so much so that they were willing to lose major chunks of seasons. There was no "kumbaya, let's help the owners and everybody will benefit." Those unions simply were neither as powerful nor as unified as the MLBPA. The NFLPA was undercut by its management being cozy with NFL power brokers.
In the NHL, the salary cap definitely has muted salaries and has forced good teams to have to break themselves up; I doubt many players would say it has been a good thing for them. The NBA and especially NFL have grown revenues enough that by and large the caps have not hurt the players, at least not yet.
The evidence so far (30 years, give or take) is no cap hasn't helped or hurt MLB players, and having the cap hasn't helped or hurt the NFL & NBA players.
The question is, has having a cap and more parity helped the whole NFL and NBA with growth? I don't know the answer.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 11, 2025, 03:32:02 PMThe NHL and NFL players did not go along with salary caps for the good of the sport. The NFL had multiple work stoppages over the issue and the NHL missed a half a season in the 90s and the entire 2004-05 season over it. And it's definitely depressed wages in both sports.
Prior to the cap, the average NHL payroll was $44 million, and seven clubs had payrolls above $60 million. The initial cap was $39 million, and the cap didn't exceed $60 million until 2012. That's tens of millions of losses for players.
Not sure what the argument for "competitive balance would be good for the sport" is based upon. Again, MLB had record revenues last year and both TV ratings and attendance are rising. The sport is doing just fine.
Moreover, the idea that the sport lacks competitive balance is overblown.
Since 2000, 15 different teams have won the World Series, i.e. half the league.
In the supposedly more competitively balanced NFL, there have been 14 different champions in the same time frame. NBA? 12. NHL? 14.
I freely admit I'm not a NHL expert. I remember there was financial stress on the majority of the NHL teams, but that may have been the commissioner's PR spin.
How is it that the NFL has depressed wages and yet they are at the same % of revenue as MLB? Honest question, does MLB have a bunch of dopes representing players?
EDIT: you make a great point on the competitive balance , I'd guess you'd say, fallacy.
In some ways having a team to hate like the Dodgers peaks interest because you get a "villian" and a team to cheer against and a chance to root for an underdog.
Quote from: MU82 on December 11, 2025, 02:52:29 PMThe material benefit to not having a cap is that you haven't started a precedent - one that could be potentially harmful to players' compensation long-term.
In the NFL, NBA and NHL, the unions aggressively fought salary caps, so much so that they were willing to lose major chunks of seasons. There was no "kumbaya, let's help the owners and everybody will benefit." Those unions simply were neither as powerful nor as unified as the MLBPA. The NFLPA was undercut by its management being cozy with NFL power brokers.
In the NHL, the salary cap definitely has muted salaries and has forced good teams to have to break themselves up; I doubt many players would say it has been a good thing for them. The NBA and especially NFL have grown revenues enough that by and large the caps have not hurt the players, at least not yet.
The only way I could ever see the MLBPA agreeing to a cap would be if a couple of teams went bankrupt and were contracted.
The closest we've ever come to bankruptcy was the Seattle Pilots in 1969, which was bought out of bankruptcy and moved to Milwaukee. I suspect the only reason the Montreal Expos were not bankrupt was Major League Baseball agreed to operate the franchise and move it to Washington. The Expos were not contracted because the solved a problem with Washington for MLB.
If an MLB team went bankrupt and the franchise charter returned to the Commissioner, then maybe. The probability of that happening is about the same as the players accepting a salary cap -- 0.0000000000000000000001 percent.
Quote from: dgies9156 on December 11, 2025, 03:54:53 PMThe only way I could ever see the MLBPA agreeing to a cap would be if a couple of teams went bankrupt and were contracted.
The closest we've ever come to bankruptcy was the Seattle Pilots in 1969, which was bought out of bankruptcy and moved to Milwaukee. I suspect the only reason the Montreal Expos were not bankrupt was Major League Baseball agreed to operate the franchise and move it to Washington. The Expos were not contracted because the solved a problem with Washington for MLB.
If an MLB team went bankrupt and the franchise charter returned to the Commissioner, then maybe. The probability of that happening is about the same as the players accepting a salary cap -- 0.0000000000000000000001 percent.
At the end of the day, it doesn't make a damn worth of difference if MLB had a cap.
If I remember correctly, this discussion was rooted in the concept of a salary floor in MLB to compel some owners to spend more. The probability of MLB having a floor without a cap is -- 0.0000000000000000000001 percent
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 11, 2025, 03:42:30 PMThe evidence so far (30 years, give or take) is no cap hasn't helped or hurt MLB players, and having the cap hasn't helped or hurt the NFL & NBA players.
The question is, has having a cap and more parity helped the whole NFL and NBA with growth? I don't know the answer.
I guess I would question both points.
What's the evidence that the cap hasn't hurt NFL or NBA players? And what's the evidence that the cap has created more parity? We already know it hasn't created more champions.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 11, 2025, 03:42:30 PMThe evidence so far (30 years, give or take) is no cap hasn't helped or hurt MLB players, and having the cap hasn't helped or hurt the NFL & NBA players.
The question is, has having a cap and more parity helped the whole NFL and NBA with growth? I don't know the answer.
Correct, you don't know the answer. You also don't know whether a salary cap has had anything to do with parity or growth. As Pakuni pointed out, MLB has had more parity despite no cap.
There is absolutely no incentive for the MLBPA to accept a salary cap.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 11, 2025, 04:01:42 PMIf I remember correctly, this discussion was rooted in the concept of a salary floor in MLB to compel some owners to spend more. The probability of MLB having a floor without a cap is -- 0.0000000000000000000001 percent
What do you base your probably percentage on?
Quote from: Pakuni on December 11, 2025, 04:02:29 PMI guess I would question both points.
What's the evidence that the cap hasn't hurt NFL or NBA players? And what's the evidence that the cap has created more parity? We already know it hasn't created more champions.
The evidence is the 3 major sport have ended up with the same split of revenues going to the players. I also don't buy the idea that the NFL and NBA players are represented by experts who are not as smart as us yahoos, who think they have been hoodwinked into repeated bad labor deals.
I did go back and concede the point on competitive balance.
Quote from: MU82 on December 11, 2025, 04:05:05 PMCorrect, you don't know the answer. You also don't know whether a salary cap has had anything to do with parity or growth. As Pakuni pointed out, MLB has had more parity despite no cap.
There is absolutely no incentive for the MLBPA to accept a salary cap.
This been essentially my point all along. I only pointed out that the floor, that would come with a cap, would protect MLB players against owners trying to depress wages. The NBA and NFL don't have that worry. But I also said that was highly unlikely, the current system works, so yes, why change?
Quote from: MU82 on December 11, 2025, 04:06:08 PMWhat do you base your probably percentage on?
dgies ;)
Quote from: MU82 on December 11, 2025, 04:06:08 PMWhat do you base your probably percentage on?
Quantification of the basic premise of 5e MLBPA. Or fear of Marvin Miller's ghost!
Nm
Hard to pick my favorite, but Row 5 Column 3 is the most relevant to the thread.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G77dkembwAAaV6z?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Quote from: 18thandWells on December 12, 2025, 06:51:59 PMHard to pick my favorite, but Row 5 Column 3 is the most relevant to the thread.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G77dkembwAAaV6z?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Whole lotta people who have struck out
Brewers trade Isaac Collins and Nick Mears for a reliever that was worse than Nick Mears last year.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 13, 2025, 06:03:58 PMBrewers trade Isaac Collins and Nick Mears for a reliever that was worse than Nick Mears last year.
Academically, I understand why Zerpa is a marginally better piece than Mears, but I'm disappointed that all those years of team control on Collins didn't have a little more market value.
Quote from: MUBurrow on December 13, 2025, 06:18:54 PMAcademically, I understand why Zerpa is a marginally better piece than Mears, but I'm disappointed that all those years of team control on Collins didn't have a little more market value.
Pay for a hard throwing lefty, and trust the lab I guess. I thought Mears was a non-tender candidate so this was really Collins (a 28 year old rookie who faded down the stretch) for Zerpa. It's a buy low move but trust the process I guess. I don't think they're done trading pitchers.
The Brewers have earned my trust on both offseason trades and pitching acquisitions. We'll see.
Quote from: 18thandWells on December 12, 2025, 06:51:59 PMHard to pick my favorite, but Row 5 Column 3 is the most relevant to the thread.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G77dkembwAAaV6z?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Reason #325 why the Cubs were, are, and will always be trash.
Quote from: GB Warrior on December 13, 2025, 07:40:16 PMPay for a hard throwing lefty, and trust the lab I guess. I thought Mears was a non-tender candidate so this was really Collins (a 28 year old rookie who faded down the stretch) for Zerpa. It's a buy low move but trust the process I guess. I don't think they're done trading pitchers.
There is now a lot of left-handed pitching in the Brewers bullpen. I wouldn't be surprised if someone (Ashby?) slides into the rotation.
Quote from: 18thandWells on December 14, 2025, 11:41:35 AMThere is now a lot of left-handed pitching in the Brewers bullpen. I wouldn't be surprised if someone (Ashby?) slides into the rotation.
Megill is also the subject of trade rumors. This trade could be setting up as a potential replacement. Especially with some of the crazy closer values.
IMO, the bullpen, like 3 pt shooting, is very important and very volatile. I like the Tigers signing Kenley Jansen and re-signing Finnegan. A back end of Holton, Vest, Jansen, and Finnegan is, completely theoretically, solid
Mets pay $40M for two years of Jorge Polanco. I wish him well. Mariners reportedly pursuing trades for Ketel Marte or Brandon Donovan.
Quote from: MU82 on December 14, 2025, 02:57:58 PMMets pay $40M for two years of Jorge Polanco. I wish him well. Mariners reportedly pursuing trades for Ketel Marte or Brandon Donovan.
I think I might rather have Brandon Donovan's elite plate discipline straight up vs betting on a repeat of whatever deal Polanco made with the devil last year.
Quote from: 18thandWells on December 14, 2025, 11:41:35 AMThere is now a lot of left-handed pitching in the Brewers bullpen. I wouldn't be surprised if someone (Ashby?) slides into the rotation.
As a starter, will they send him out there every game, like in the playoffs?
Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on December 15, 2025, 01:42:25 PMAs a starter, will they send him out there every game, like in the playoffs?
Blown openers will continue until morale improves
Quote from: GB Warrior on December 15, 2025, 03:03:47 PMBlown openers will continue until morale improves
Pulling a Mickey Mantle?
Stop me if you've heard this before, but it sure looks like the Tigers are counting on growth and development for 2026.
Now that it appears the Tigers are not going to trade Skubal, 12 out of 13 position players are easily predictable and the same that were projected to start last season, pre injuries. 4 out of 5 starting pitching slots are known. The 4 at the back end of the bullpen are known. Basically, the only unknown is whether Detroit is going to have McGonigle on the opening day roster. If so, at shortstop or third? If at shortstop, is Baez the CF or is Meadows?
Other than that, very MU-like.
Quote from: tower912 on December 16, 2025, 05:45:57 PMStop me if you've heard this before, but it sure looks like the Tigers are counting on growth and development for 2026.
Now that it appears the Tigers are not going to trade Skubal, 12 out of 13 position players are easily predictable and the same that were projected to start last season, pre injuries. 4 out of 5 starting pitching slots are known. The 4 at the back end of the bullpen are known. Basically, the only unknown is whether Detroit is going to have McGonigle on the opening day roster. If so, at shortstop or third? If at shortstop, is Baez the CF or is Meadows?
Other than that, very MU-like.
What does it say that I have more faith in Javi hitting a breaking ball low and outside than I do in this basketball program
Sometimes, but not often, Javy can resist swinging at that crap pitch. We should all try the same.
Munetaka Murakami picks ... the White Sox.
Are the Sox back?
Quote from: Pakuni on December 21, 2025, 09:43:37 AMMunetaka Murakami picks ... the White Sox.
Are the Sox back?
Can't be excited until they're in a Playoff race.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 21, 2025, 09:43:37 AMMunetaka Murakami picks ... the White Sox.
Are the Sox back?
Well, the best case scenario is he plays well enough to be traded for prospects. Not a horrible strategy.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 21, 2025, 09:54:19 AMCan't be excited until they're in a Playoff race.
And stop being excited immediately after Game 1 of the NLCS and switch to complaining about revenue sharing.
Shades of Dave Kingman?
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 21, 2025, 10:04:17 AMWell, the best case scenario is he plays well enough to be traded for prospects. Not a horrible strategy.
Especially for the price. Given the potential upside, that's a good lottery ticket imo.
Quote from: Jockey on December 21, 2025, 12:13:20 PMShades of Dave Kingman?
Quote from The Athletic about sums it up:
"That just kind of is who he is, so the strikeout percentage is going to be there," a National League Pacific Rim scout told The Athletic in November. "It's just going to be, 'Can he get to enough home-run damage to make it worth it?' Is it going to be closer to Kyle Schwarber production or Joey Gallo production?"
Quote from: Pakuni on December 21, 2025, 12:20:08 PMQuote from The Athletic about sums it up:
"That just kind of is who he is, so the strikeout percentage is going to be there," a National League Pacific Rim scout told The Athletic in November. "It's just going to be, 'Can he get to enough home-run damage to make it worth it?' Is it going to be closer to Kyle Schwarber production or Joey Gallo production?"
I immediately thought Adam Dunn, but Gallo/Schwarber makes a lot of sense.
Definitely makes their lineup more interesting for 2026, this is probably the most left handed hitting Sox team I can recall.
I have never seen a second of the league in which he played, but if Murakami can't hit anything above 94mph, that may pose a problem in MLB.
Quote from: 18thandWells on December 21, 2025, 01:50:25 PMI have never seen a second of the league in which he played, but if Murakami can't hit anything above 94mph, that may pose a problem in MLB.
He'll be a killer against all the knuckle ball pitchers.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 21, 2025, 12:20:08 PMQuote from The Athletic about sums it up:
"That just kind of is who he is, so the strikeout percentage is going to be there," a National League Pacific Rim scout told The Athletic in November. "It's just going to be, 'Can he get to enough home-run damage to make it worth it?' Is it going to be closer to Kyle Schwarber production or Joey Gallo production?"
Better than Gallo - maybe by a lot.
Using Scwarber's name in the comparison is sacreligious.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 21, 2025, 09:54:19 AMCan't be excited until they're in a Playoff race.
Say it louder for those in the back!!!
I saw this guy's first name in an article in The Athletic and thought it had to be a typo. Or that maybe the writer was drunk:
Jhostynxon Garcia
Quote from: MU82 on January 05, 2026, 09:01:06 AMI saw this guy's first name in an article in The Athletic and thought it had to be a typo. Or that maybe the writer was drunk:
Jhostynxon Garcia
Oh it gets better...his nickname is "The Password". Incredible
Quote from: MU82 on January 05, 2026, 09:01:06 AMI saw this guy's first name in an article in The Athletic and thought it had to be a typo. Or that maybe the writer was drunk:
Jhostynxon Garcia
That's what I wanted to name my son, but my wife vetoed it.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 05, 2026, 01:37:09 PMThat's what I wanted to name my son, but my wife vetoed it.
Yeah, the traditional names like Michael, Jonathan, Steven, Jhostynxon, Peter, and the like are fading in popularity.
Will the As need a name change? (Las Vegas Athletics is kinda lame anyhow).
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued a second refusal of trademark applications filed by the owner of the Athletics, denying registration of 'Las Vegas Athletics' and 'Vegas Athletics.'
The refusals, issued on December 29, reaffirm an earlier decision finding that the marks are primarily geographically descriptive and therefore not eligible for registration on the Principal Register.
https://www.gerbenlaw.com/blog/uspto-denies-las-vegas-athletics-trademarks-as-geographically-descriptive/
Quote from: Pakuni on January 06, 2026, 12:59:48 PMWill the As need a name change? (Las Vegas Athletics is kina lame anyhow).
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued a second refusal of trademark applications filed by the owner of the Athletics, denying registration of 'Las Vegas Athletics' and 'Vegas Athletics.'
I hope not. The As are iconic in my book. And please get off my lawn. ;D
Quote from: WhiteTrash on January 06, 2026, 03:05:26 PMI hope not. The As are iconic in my book. And please get off my lawn. ;D
Can't believe you said 'please'.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 06, 2026, 12:59:48 PMfinding that the marks are primarily geographically descriptive and therefore not eligible for registration on the Principal Register.
The Athletics, (and the "A's" design), have gone from Philly, to Kansas City, to Oakland already. I say let it continue to Vegas.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/47539960/sources-cubs-close-landing-edward-cabrera-trade-marlins
Quote from: 18thandWells on January 07, 2026, 12:03:58 PMhttps://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/47539960/sources-cubs-close-landing-edward-cabrera-trade-marlins
If healthy Horton, Steele, and Cabrera would be a nice top 3. If healthy.
I'm assuming Caissie is gone.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 07, 2026, 12:53:46 PMIf healthy Horton, Steele, and Cabrera would be a nice top 3. If healthy.
I'm assuming Caissie is gone.
With Boyd and Shota completing a pretty strong rotation. Owen Cassie, like Matt Murton and Rick Sutcliffe before him, is probably gone.
Quote from: 18thandWells on January 07, 2026, 02:38:46 PMWith Boyd and Shota completing a pretty strong rotation. Owen Cassie, like Matt Murton and Rick Sutcliffe before him, is probably gone.
And Taillon.
The Tigers are not a serious franchise. That's what happens when you get a nepobaby in charge.
https://x.com/BradGalli/status/2009451790757167542
To be fair, Skubal filed for a $22M raise. Has anyone ever come close to that in arbitration? (I have no idea but that seems pretty unusual.)
The Dodgers will take Skubal from the Tigers if they won't pay him. I would rather have Skenes from the Pirates, but I have no idea what it would take to get him. Either way we would just adding to an already fantastic rotation.
Quote from: SoCalEagle on January 09, 2026, 02:15:27 PMThe Dodgers will take Skubal from the Tigers if they won't pay him. I would rather have Skenes from the Pirates, but I have no idea what it would take to get him. Either way we would just adding to an already fantastic rotation.
They'll just wait a year and sign Skubal without having to give up anything from their top rated farm system. Why give up assets when you can just outbid anyone?
Quote from: wadesworld on January 09, 2026, 02:25:57 PMThey'll just wait a year and sign Skubal without having to give up anything from their top rated farm system. Why give up assets when you can just outbid anyone?
That attitude by Dodgers fans is why people hate them. Soon we'll have to listen to talk that Roberts is one of the greatest managers. In reality, he is the only guy coaching as team of all-stars.
Belichick was great when he had the GOAT. He was a crap coach when he didn't.
Stay classy, Cubs
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2026/01/09/addison-russell-cubscon/
Bregman to the Cubs. I thought Matt Shaw was their future 3B, and did nazi this move coming.
Quote from: 18thandWells on January 10, 2026, 09:46:35 PMBregman to the Cubs. I thought Matt Shaw was their future 3B, and did nazi this move coming.
Will he bring his own garbage can?
.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 10, 2026, 10:03:23 PMWill he bring his own garbage can?
No, he'll play in one
Quote from: 18thandWells on January 10, 2026, 09:46:35 PMBregman to the Cubs. I thought Matt Shaw was their future 3B, and did nazi this move coming.
As a Cubs fan that despises Shaw this is a solid effort.
Quote from: Shaka Shart on January 09, 2026, 08:59:37 PMStay classy, Cubs
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2026/01/09/addison-russell-cubscon/
I don't like this and I hope it is addressed prior or during the convention.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on January 10, 2026, 11:47:33 PMI don't like this and I hope it is addressed prior or during the convention.
Yes he'll get a stern talking to
Quote from: GB Warrior on January 10, 2026, 11:53:11 PMYes he'll get a stern talking to
You know that's not what I meant. I will never condone his actions and I don't think he should have been invited back.
However, he has been so that needs to be addressed head on.
Quite honestly, I'm surprised he wants to make himself a rightful target unless he wants to further address his actions.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on January 11, 2026, 12:18:12 AMYou know that's not what I meant. I will never condone his actions and I don't think he should have been invited back.
However, he has been so that needs to be addressed head on.
Quite honestly, I'm surprised he wants to make himself a rightful target unless he wants to further address his actions.
Sorry, that wasn't targeted at you. There's just no way to un-ring that bell
Quote from: GB Warrior on January 11, 2026, 12:21:37 AMSorry, that wasn't targeted at you. There's just no way to un-ring that bell
Won't argue with that. Just seems like a decision that is creating unnecessary opportunities for sh*t that isn't necessary.
A Toronto restaurant is offering Bo Bichette free steak for the rest of his life if he re-signs with the Blue Jays.
Great for America's new food pyramid, too!
Tom Ricketts, funding the resistance
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/astros/article/alex-bregman-sam-father-new-mexico-governor-20269480.php
I heard on an Astros broadcast that Bregman chose his uniform number because he thought he would be motivated by the "constant reminder he was picked second- not first- in the MLB draft." The first pick in '15 was Dansby Swanson; pick 9 that year was Ian Happ, and Kyle Tucker was taken fifth. Herr Ricketts and brass seem to really like that draft class.
The remains of a once great ballplayer named Nolan Arenado have been shipped to Arizona for very little in return.
Salary dump. No idea what Arizona was thinking.
Quote from: MU82 on January 12, 2026, 12:13:09 PMA Toronto restaurant is offering Bo Bichette free steak for the rest of his life if he re-signs with the Blue Jays.
Great for America's new food pyramid, too!
If there's one thing that could sway a guy who is about to make $300 million, it's free steak.
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on January 13, 2026, 03:03:58 PMIf there's one thing that could sway a guy who is about to make $300 million, it's free steak.
Two things.
https://torontosun.com/sports/baseball/toronto-blue-jays/bo-bichette-lifetime-supply-viagra-peta (https://torontosun.com/sports/baseball/toronto-blue-jays/bo-bichette-lifetime-supply-viagra-peta)
Quote from: MU82 on January 12, 2026, 12:13:09 PMA Toronto restaurant is offering Bo Bichette free steak for the rest of his life if he re-signs with the Blue Jays.
Great for America's new food pyramid, too!
I think 2 years ago a Chicago restaurant offered the White Sox starting lineup free steak for life if they would retire from MLB. :D
The Yankees did well in the Weathers trade. Miami must be really bearish on his health, because they went the volume route for the return rather than quality. He hasn't been able to stay healthy, but he's looked really good when he's pitched.
Royals moving their walls in for competitive reasons. They should also plant weeds on the wall that have their own arcane rules.
Quote from: GB Warrior on January 14, 2026, 09:06:36 AMRoyals moving their walls in for competitive reasons. They should also plant weeds on the wall that have their own arcane rules.
Maybe they can also convince Rob Manfred to care about one of their players trying to break not even the overall MLB hr record or something
This is going to be received well here.
https://x.com/JeffPassan/status/2011994654292787536?s=20
Shocking. Baseball has it all figured out.
At least adding one of the best players in baseball will finally deplete some of their top rated farm system this time. Err...
Whoever the Dodgers knock out with a starting rotation of Yamamoto, Shohei, Snell, Glasnow, Sasaki (who doesn't have to close because they simply signed Diaz), and Sheehan just needs to "hit better" than their lineup of Shohei, Tucker, Betts, Freeman, Smith, Muncy, Hernandez, Edmond, Pagas.
No problem.
I typed that because the Brewers hit .118 in the NLCS.
They also batted Yelich cleanup.
It was bad enough to drive some people crazy.
Tucker was projected to get around $40MM AAV. Mets shocked people with a shorter term, $50MM AAV offer. All the Dodgers gave him was $60MM AAV.
All good.
Mediocre Dave Roberts will be an even greater manager now. :D :D :D
Quote from: wadesworld on January 15, 2026, 09:31:49 PMTucker was projected to get around $40MM AAV. Mets shocked people with a shorter term, $50MM AAV offer. All the Dodgers gave him was $60MM AAV.
All good.
Sounds like a lot of the money is being deferred, though.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 15, 2026, 10:07:20 PMSounds like a lot of the money is being deferred, though.
Only $30M.
I'm amused the Brewers fans here are upset at the deal and not the Cubs fans who lost their player.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 15, 2026, 10:12:33 PMI'm amused the Brewers fans here are upset at the deal and not the Cubs fans who lost their player.
Yeah, the Brewers definitely aren't affected by teams being able to outbid them for their best players.
Quote from: wadesworld on January 15, 2026, 10:18:54 PMYeah, the Brewers definitely aren't affected by teams being able to outbid them.
If you want to feel even worse, they are paying $126M a year for Tucker with the 110% luxury tax penalty.
Think of how much sand that could buy
Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 15, 2026, 10:12:33 PMI'm amused the Brewers fans here are upset at the deal and not the Cubs fans who lost their player.
My son, a big Cubbie fan, said: "I am getting so sick of this sh!t."
That's life in the big leagues, kid.
Quote from: MU82 on January 16, 2026, 12:28:20 AMMy son, a big Cubbie fan, said: "I am getting so sick of this sh!t."
That's life in the big leagues, kid.
I mean, speaking as a Cubs fan, I'm not thrilled about losing Tucker, but they just signed a big name All Star/Gold Glove third baseman for $175MM last week. They signed another All Star/Gold Glove player in Swanson a few offseasons ago. They aren't Little Sisters of the Poor who can't afford any top free agents.
If not the Dodgers, the Mets were gonna overpay for Tucker. He was gone anyways.
Listen, what the Dodgers are doing is absurd. I saw that they are actually paying $120MM a year for Tucker (The $60MM plus luxury taxes on it). That's larger than some team payrolls. They have more than $800MM in contracts in excess of the total contracts of the Padres, who are second, and have a bunch of inflated contracts of their own. Any disappointment I have is divorced from any Cubs fanship cause I assumed he'd likely be going to Queens anyways.
What I think is more insane is, while he is a very good player, Tucker (4x AS, 1 GG, 2 SS) is making DOUBLE the annual salary of Mookie Betts (8x AS, 1 MVP, 6 GG, and 7 SS) and only $10MM (14%) less than Ohtani who is the best player of the last 25 years and who has a realistic chance of chasing down Bonds' 7 MVPs.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 15, 2026, 10:12:33 PMI'm amused the Brewers fans here are upset at the deal and not the Cubs fans who lost their player.
This isn't about the Brewers. This is about every 97-win team who can only muster 4 total runs in the Championship Series due to a poor system of revenue sharing.
At least the Dodgers' payroll for 2026 as it stands is less than $100MM more than the second highest payroll. They're only $96.5MM more than the Mets. Baseball has this figured out.
Is there any calculus for the Dodgers in this with respect to the CBA? Like surely a salary cap helps them too - pure profit if they are limited by rule. And if they keep making these absurdist moves that stretch the game to its limit, a cap becomes a move in self-preservation.
Or is this just a calculus of Dodgers money printer go brrrr
This is *chefs kiss*
https://x.com/mattmccarthy985/status/2011999828503576982?s=46 (https://x.com/mattmccarthy985/status/2011999828503576982?s=46)
Bichette to Mets. 3/$126. Two opt outs.
After Jhostynxon "The Password" Garcia and his brother, Johanfran "The Username" Garcia, we have another entry to the "real MLB player or minor character from Major League", welcome the new Brewers signing from the DR...
https://x.com/benbadler/status/2011895597952090213?s=46 (https://x.com/benbadler/status/2011895597952090213?s=46)
Ricky Moneys!! You could reasonably assume it's a nickname Ricky Henderson gave himself
Quote from: JWags85 on January 16, 2026, 02:35:04 PMAfter Jhostynxon "The Password" Garcia and his brother, Johanfran "The Username" Garcia, we have another entry to the "real MLB player or minor character from Major League", welcome the new Brewers signing from the DR...
https://x.com/benbadler/status/2011895597952090213?s=46 (https://x.com/benbadler/status/2011895597952090213?s=46)
Ricky Moneys!! You could reasonably assume it's a nickname Ricky Henderson gave himself
Brewers 2035 Word Series is so back on the schedule.
Quote from: JWags85 on January 16, 2026, 02:35:04 PMAfter Jhostynxon "The Password" Garcia and his brother, Johanfran "The Username" Garcia, we have another entry to the "real MLB player or minor character from Major League", welcome the new Brewers signing from the DR...
https://x.com/benbadler/status/2011895597952090213?s=46 (https://x.com/benbadler/status/2011895597952090213?s=46)
Ricky Moneys!! You could reasonably assume it's a nickname Ricky Henderson gave himself
"Hey, Hey, Hey," we used to drop Rickey money at 26th and State.
Quote from: GB Warrior on January 16, 2026, 03:29:32 PMBrewers 2035 Word Series is so back on the schedule.
Ideally by then the Ishbias are spending a chunk of change on the luxury tax in Chicago so Brewers fans have something else to complain about.
I assume by then the Ricketts will have built a hotel casino on the field itself and the team is forced to move.
Quote from: Shaka Shart on January 16, 2026, 04:13:19 PMIdeally by then the Ishbias are spending a chunk of change on the luxury tax in Chicago so Brewers fans have something else to complain about.
I assume by then the Ricketts will have built a hotel casino on the field itself and the team is forced to move.
Paying the luxury tax is the ultimate form of gluttony so will incur the wrath of the pope and counteract the spending
Quote from: GB Warrior on January 16, 2026, 05:25:32 PMPaying the luxury tax is the ultimate form of gluttony so will incur the wrath of the pope and counteract the spending
By then, Malibu will be nothing but rocky barren shoreline
Quote from: JWags85 on January 16, 2026, 07:48:16 AMI mean, speaking as a Cubs fan, I'm not thrilled about losing Tucker, but they just signed a big name All Star/Gold Glove third baseman for $175MM last week. They signed another All Star/Gold Glove player in Swanson a few offseasons ago. They aren't Little Sisters of the Poor who can't afford any top free agents.
If not the Dodgers, the Mets were gonna overpay for Tucker. He was gone anyways.
Listen, what the Dodgers are doing is absurd. I saw that they are actually paying $120MM a year for Tucker (The $60MM plus luxury taxes on it). That's larger than some team payrolls. They have more than $800MM in contracts in excess of the total contracts of the Padres, who are second, and have a bunch of inflated contracts of their own. Any disappointment I have is divorced from any Cubs fanship cause I assumed he'd likely be going to Queens anyways.
What I think is more insane is, while he is a very good player, Tucker (4x AS, 1 GG, 2 SS) is making DOUBLE the annual salary of Mookie Betts (8x AS, 1 MVP, 6 GG, and 7 SS) and only $10MM (14%) less than Ohtani who is the best player of the last 25 years and who has a realistic chance of chasing down Bonds' 7 MVPs.
My son wasn't saying that because he's pissed the Cubbies lost Tucker because he knew that was gonna happen. Like some here, he's just tired of the Dodgers paying whatever they want for whatever player they want.
And yes, about paying Tucker so much more than Mookie. But it's all funny money to 'em anyway.
Couldn't the Cubs have kept Tucker if they really wanted him? Do they not have a big market payroll to pay top players?
Quote from: SoCalEagle on January 17, 2026, 06:03:43 PMCouldn't the Cubs have kept Tucker if they really wanted him? Do they not have a big market payroll to pay top players?
Ricketts need that for Trumps campaign for his 3rd term.
Quote from: SoCalEagle on January 17, 2026, 06:03:43 PMCouldn't the Cubs have kept Tucker if they really wanted him? Do they not have a big market payroll to pay top players?
Absolutely. They're just whiners.
Also, what GB Warrior said.
Quote from: SoCalEagle on January 17, 2026, 06:03:43 PMCouldn't the Cubs have kept Tucker if they really wanted him?
Any MLB team can sign any Free Agent.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkNH-P6WcAAEiti.png)
He's probably just trying to save up to buy up Boys town and put in a bunch of chik fil As
Former White Sox knuckleballer Wilbur Wood died over the weekend.
My main memory of him was that I was in Yankee Stadium the day Reggie Jackson homered off of him - the shot that launched tens of thousands of Reggie Bars onto the field.
Jackson, who years earlier had said that if played in New York "they'd name a candy bar after me," indeed had a candy bar named after him following his historic performance in the 1977 World Series.
Before their 1978 home opener, the Yankees gave every fan entering the park a Reggie Bar. Jackson hit a shot off of Wood in the first inning, and fans reacted by throwing the candy onto the field from every section and from the farthest reaches. The game was delayed for several minutes to clear the field.
Quote from: JWags85 on January 16, 2026, 07:48:16 AMI mean, speaking as a Cubs fan, I'm not thrilled about losing Tucker, but they just signed a big name All Star/Gold Glove third baseman for $175MM last week. They signed another All Star/Gold Glove player in Swanson a few offseasons ago. They aren't Little Sisters of the Poor who can't afford any top free agents.
If not the Dodgers, the Mets were gonna overpay for Tucker. He was gone anyways.
Listen, what the Dodgers are doing is absurd. I saw that they are actually paying $120MM a year for Tucker (The $60MM plus luxury taxes on it). That's larger than some team payrolls. They have more than $800MM in contracts in excess of the total contracts of the Padres, who are second, and have a bunch of inflated contracts of their own. Any disappointment I have is divorced from any Cubs fanship cause I assumed he'd likely be going to Queens anyways.
What I think is more insane is, while he is a very good player, Tucker (4x AS, 1 GG, 2 SS) is making DOUBLE the annual salary of Mookie Betts (8x AS, 1 MVP, 6 GG, and 7 SS) and only $10MM (14%) less than Ohtani who is the best player of the last 25 years and who has a realistic chance of chasing down Bonds' 7 MVPs.
Paying 60 million for a .266 hitter is absurd. Now if he batted over .300 it would make a little more sense.
Batting average is an outdated metric for thy type of analysis.
Per BBWAA's official unwritten rules, noted sign-stealer Carlos Beltran is elected to the Hall of Fame the same year PED-user Manny Ramirez falls off the ballot.
Quote from: 18thandWells on January 20, 2026, 06:06:42 PMPer BBWAA's official unwritten rules, noted sign-stealer Carlos Beltran is elected to the Hall of Fame the same year PED-user Manny Ramirez falls off the ballot.
One had a direct correlation to undermining the integrity of the game and the other was Manny Ramirez
Andruw Jones picked up 303 votes since 2018 when he received under 8% in his first year of eligibility.
Quote from: 18thandWells on January 20, 2026, 06:43:27 PMAndruw Jones picked up 303 votes since 2018 when he received under 8% in his first year of eligibility.
He'll be placed in the Santo/Baines wing of the Hall.
Quote from: MU82 on January 19, 2026, 08:57:58 AMBefore their 1978 home opener, the Yankees gave every fan entering the park a Reggie Bar. Jackson hit a shot off of Wood in the first inning, and fans reacted by throwing the candy onto the field from every section and from the farthest reaches. The game was delayed for several minutes to clear the field.
I was at that game. They littered the field with hundreds of bars. Reggie had hit 3 in a row against the Dodgers in the series so this was 4 in a row. He really was something else.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=641582425504004
(Best of buddies, Reggie and Billy)
Quote from: Mutaman on January 20, 2026, 08:58:54 PMI was at that game. They littered the field with hundreds of bars. Reggie had hit 3 in a row against the Dodgers in the series so this was 4 in a row. He really was something else.
I confess that I threw my Reggie Bar onto the field - all the way from the upper deck. Did you throw yours?
https://x.com/JeffPassan/status/2013828391158391173?s=20
Quote from: MU82 on January 19, 2026, 08:57:58 AMFormer White Sox knuckleballer Wilbur Wood died over the weekend.
My main memory of him was that I was in Yankee Stadium the day Reggie Jackson homered off of him - the shot that launched tens of thousands of Reggie Bars onto the field.
Jackson, who years earlier had said that if played in New York "they'd name a candy bar after me," indeed had a candy bar named after him following his historic performance in the 1977 World Series.
Before their 1978 home opener, the Yankees gave every fan entering the park a Reggie Bar. Jackson hit a shot off of Wood in the first inning, and fans reacted by throwing the candy onto the field from every section and from the farthest reaches. The game was delayed for several minutes to clear the field.
I happened to be at the doubleheader in 1973 when Wood started both games against the Yankees, since my father would only go to doubleheaders as he wasn't going to pay those ridiculous prices ($1.50) for just one game. Wood didn't record an out in the first game so they brought him back to start the second game, where he pitched poorly and lost again. He averaged 45 starts/season for a 5 year stretch for the ChiSox, including back to back seasons with 49 starts. They don't make them like that anymore.
Quote from: 18thandWells on January 20, 2026, 06:06:42 PMPer BBWAA's official unwritten rules, noted sign-stealer Carlos Beltran is elected to the Hall of Fame the same year PED-user Manny Ramirez falls off the ballot.
Willie Mays was on the 1951 Giants, who stole signals just as blatantly as the 2017 Astros using non-players with telescopes to relay signs to hitters. If you're going to not allow players who used illegal methods to steal signs, you pretty much couldn't allow anybody.
I get your point about steroids, which are just basically a more effective method of using greenies, which Willie Mays (and everybody else) also used for a good 50+ years.
I get letting in the guys who used when MLB tacitly allowed it by knowingly looking the other way, but the guys who got caught after testing started may be another issue.
But the only guy I think unequivocally should not be allowed in is Joe Jackson, who without denying it took money to lose a World Series on purpose.
Quote from: CTWarrior on January 21, 2026, 06:33:38 AMIf you're going to not allow players who used illegal methods to steal signs, you pretty much couldn't allow anybody.
That's an interesting take I've never read elsewhere.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 20, 2026, 10:33:13 PMhttps://x.com/JeffPassan/status/2013828391158391173?s=20
Good to see the CWS free up some cash so they can hit free agency hard. ;D ;D ;D
It could be a great move by the Mets, as Robert has all the tools but a change of scenery maybe in order. The level of losing he has endured has to be draining, even though he is one of the reasons for the team's poor performance.
I don't think the CWS improved the organization other than saving Jerry some cash.
Making money for Jerry is the ONLY priority.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on January 21, 2026, 08:13:31 AMIt could be a great move by the Mets, as Robert has all the tools but a change of scenery maybe in order.
Stearns should approach Eloy Jimenez at the car wash where he's working. Get the band back together.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on January 21, 2026, 08:13:31 AMGood to see the CWS free up some cash so they can hit free agency hard. ;D ;D ;D
It could be a great move by the Mets, as Robert has all the tools but a change of scenery maybe in order. The level of losing he has endured has to be draining, even though he is one of the reasons for the team's poor performance.
I don't think the CWS improved the organization other than saving Jerry some cash.
Robert can be a great player when healthy and motivated, something he hasn't been in several years. But even when he's not hitting - which, again, not in several years - his glove is elite.
That said, he turns 29 this summer, is on an expiring contract and doesn't fit the organization's timeline. Trading him was the right move, regardless of money (and it's not saving that much money, tbh).
Is the organization better off? Depends where Acuna goes from here. He's a former top 100 prospect who showed some upside last season and offers positional versatility to at worst be a utility guy. That'll be a better fit for the club's window of contention - which is still a couple years off - than Robert.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on January 21, 2026, 08:13:31 AMGood to see the CWS free up some cash so they can hit free agency hard. ;D ;D ;D
It could be a great move by the Mets, as Robert has all the tools but a change of scenery maybe in order. The level of losing he has endured has to be draining, even though he is one of the reasons for the team's poor performance.
I don't think the CWS improved the organization other than saving Jerry some cash.
"I'm sick of losing"
*Goes to Mets*
In all seriousness, a decent swing for both. Mets get a high upside swing, Sox get cash plus a prospect that until last year was highly acclaimed. I like it more for the Sox but that says more about what I think the likely outcomes for Roberts are.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 21, 2026, 08:58:23 AMRobert can be a great player when healthy and motivated, something he hasn't been in several years. But even when he's not hitting - which, again, not in several years - his glove is elite.
That said, he turns 29 this summer, is on an expiring contract and doesn't fit the organization's timeline. Trading him was the right move, regardless of money (and it's not saving that much money, tbh).
Is the organization better off? Depends where Acuna goes from here. He's a former top 100 prospect who showed some upside last season and offers positional versatility to at worst be a utility guy. That'll be a better fit for the club's window of contention - which is still a couple years off - than Robert.
It is not that much money for MLB. It is for Jerry. As it stands, the Sox will have the lowest payroll in MLB at under $70M.
I agree there could be some upside for the Sox, but if I had to bet on it, I think most people will forget this trade in a year or two because it didn't do much, if anything, for both clubs.
The Athletic's Ken Rosenthal reports that, in the wake of the Dodgers signing Kyle Tucker, MLB "owners will push for a salary cap."
;D ;D ;D Believe it or NOT, they had never even considered it before.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on January 21, 2026, 09:17:53 AMIt is not that much money for MLB. It is for Jerry. As it stands, the Sox will have the lowest payroll in MLB at under $70M.
I agree there could be some upside for the Sox, but if I had to bet on it, I think most people will forget this trade in a year or two because it didn't do much, if anything, for both clubs.
Jerry's an 89-year-old man worth more than $2 billion, and in line for another billion or so once the sale to Ishbia goes through. He's not siphoning off money from the Luis Robert deal to pay his rent.
Historically speaking, the White Sox haven't been as cheap as some like to believe. I mean, since 2000 they've had a top 10 payroll more often than a bottom 10 payroll. The problem hasn't been the lack of spending, it's been the way they money has been spent, largely the result of backwards-ass operations from a front office in which fealty and brown-nosing were rewarded more than production and success.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 21, 2026, 11:01:02 AMJerry's an 89-year-old man worth more than $2 billion, and in line for another billion or so once the sale to Ishbia goes through. He's not siphoning off money from the Luis Robert deal to pay his rent.
Historically speaking, the White Sox haven't been as cheap as some like to believe. I mean, since 2000 they've had a top 10 payroll more often than a bottom 10 payroll. The problem hasn't been the lack of spending, it's been the way they money has been spent, largely the result of backwards-ass operations from a front office in which fealty and brown-nosing were rewarded more than production and success.
They have never signed a player to a big money contract.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 21, 2026, 11:01:02 AMJerry's an 89-year-old man worth more than $2 billion, and in line for another billion or so once the sale to Ishbia goes through. He's not siphoning off money from the Luis Robert deal to pay his rent.
Historically speaking, the White Sox haven't been as cheap as some like to believe. I mean, since 2000 they've had a top 10 payroll more often than a bottom 10 payroll. The problem hasn't been the lack of spending, it's been the way they money has been spent, largely the result of backwards-ass operations from a front office in which fealty and brown-nosing were rewarded more than production and success.
Those are fair points, but Jerry has had 15 years to invest in the front office and technology at a fraction of the cost of players salaries and refused to do so. Maybe his frugal ways are a recent issue due to age, but he has run the organization in some areas like an AAA club, and some former players have chimed in on the Sox being a below average club with how things are run.
I guess we'll never know, but the end is near. :)
Quote from: Jockey on January 21, 2026, 11:10:22 AMThey have never signed a player to a big money contract.
It was a very long time, but I'm pretty sure Albert Belle signed a record contract for the time.
Quote from: 18thandWells on January 21, 2026, 11:46:00 AMIt was a very long time, but I'm pretty sure Albert Belle signed a record contract for the time.
True, but it included an optout if he wasn't in the 3 highest paid players which he used after 2 years when the WS refused to do so.
Cody Bellinger officially back to the Yankees on a 5 year deal.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on January 21, 2026, 12:40:15 PMCody Bellinger officially back to the Yankees on a 5 year deal.
Finally a win for one of the little guys
Quote from: Jockey on January 21, 2026, 12:27:27 PMTrue, but it included an optout if he wasn't in the 3 highest paid players which he used after 2 years when the WS refused to do so.
He posted 3.4 and 0.6 WAR seasons the next two years then retired from baseball. So, perhaps declining to make him one of the three highest-paid players in baseball wasn't a bad idea?
Quote from: CreightonWarrior on January 21, 2026, 01:50:00 PMFinally a win for one of the little guys
Finally, some team is spending the revenue sharing.
Quote from: Jockey on January 20, 2026, 06:46:47 PMHe'll be placed in the Santo/Baines wing of the Hall.
That's not entirely fair to Jones. There are only 14 other players in history that won 10+ GG, and the only 2 that aren't in the HOF are Vizquel and Keith Hernandez. Vizquel couldn't hit hence why he has a career WAR under 40 despite being a top 3 defensive SS of all time and Hernandez probably gets dinged for playing on TONS of terrible teams, despite winning 2 WS titles. Pretty crazy to only make the playoffs 3 times in a 17 year career...yet win a ring in 66% of those appearances.
Jones is at worst the 3rd best defensive CF of all time behind Mays and Griffey. And at his peak he was an absolute weapon at the plate. That 2005 season was preposterous and he was an absolute superstar for a good 6-7 years. If he didn't get fat and lazy after leaving Atlanta and had even decent years in his early 30s, he would have sleepwalked to a 70+ WAR and been a no brainer. Even still, WAR wise he's basically comped to guys like Andrew Dawson and Dave Winfield, not a bum like Baines.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 21, 2026, 02:04:32 PMHe posted 3.4 and 0.6 WAR seasons the next two years then retired from baseball. So, perhaps declining to make him one of the three highest-paid players in baseball wasn't a bad idea?
His sunny disposition made up for any decline in WAR.
Lost in the PED-magic of the '98 home run chase is one of the greatest second halves by a hitter ever. Joey/Albert could rake.
Freddy gowne.
Two top 5 prospects from a good system. Could do worse.
Losing Tucker broke Steve Cohen, I guess.
https://x.com/MLB/status/2014169307731706282?s=20
Perhaps Stearns knew what he was doing when he made sure Milwaukee "threw in," Tobias Meyers in the Peralta deal.
I love Freddy but think the Crew kind of had to deal him this offseason. Two high floor prospects, but maybe a bit lower ceiling. A good enough return imo, though I was kind of hoping lower payroll teams would be willing to overpay for the contract. Alas.
Jett is such a Brewer. Unless Ortiz's offense rebounds, I'd expect Jett to man the spot until Made is ready. At that point, you can move Williams just about anywhere you want and he's at worst a super utility guy.
Sproat I don't have much of an opinion on, but consensus is he slots in as a #3 guy pretty quickly.
Quote from: GB Warrior on January 22, 2026, 04:28:07 AMJett is such a Brewer. Unless Ortiz's offense rebounds, I'd expect Jett to man the spot until Made is ready. At that point, you can move Williams just about anywhere you want and he's at worst a super utility guy.
Sproat I don't have much of an opinion on, but consensus is he slots in as a #3 guy pretty quickly.
Mets will be complaining today because they were high on Sproat in this years starting rotation.
The Cardinals are so back.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXTRkHnpXpTk1GlwdRix6VMLAPpz6hkBM4-9V04u4XQQ&s)
So, Brewers fans, a new enemy? Mets engaging in the arms race insanity with the Dodgers?
Quote from: 18thandWells on January 22, 2026, 08:21:06 AMThe Cardinals are so back.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXTRkHnpXpTk1GlwdRix6VMLAPpz6hkBM4-9V04u4XQQ&s)
This can only help. The volume of spitting on opposing players/umps/fans had taken a real dip, leading to some subpar seasons.
Peralta has the lowest batting average against of any starter ever. Also the 2nd most k/9 all- time of starters.
Quote from: 18thandWells on January 22, 2026, 08:21:06 AMThe Cardinals are so back.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXTRkHnpXpTk1GlwdRix6VMLAPpz6hkBM4-9V04u4XQQ&s)
Contract is unenforceable because he insisted on it being unwritten
https://nypost.com/2018/04/08/what-bad-word-made-yadier-molina-want-to-attack-a-manager/
"woke"
Quote from: GB Warrior on January 22, 2026, 11:29:02 AMContract is enforceable because he insisted on it being unwritten
Unwritten also works for all the untrackable stats that are claimed he was great at. Weird
I think my favorite part is the way Chipper Jones can't spell "wipe."
https://x.com/MLFootball/status/2015888646046413302/photo/1 (https://x.com/MLFootball/status/2015888646046413302/photo/1)
Quote from: Shaka Shart on May 25, 2025, 07:25:19 PMI'm glad the cubs have moved on from their days of Aroldis Chapman to a much more family friendly hero we can all cheer for like Reese McGuire
Family friendly hero Reese McGuire to Brewers
Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 28, 2026, 02:24:20 PMFamily friendly hero Reese McGuire to Brewers
Well at least you know there won't be a jerk in the clubhouse (it'll be in the car)
Brewers farm system ranked #1 in The Athletic - Keith Law, I think.
Nm.
ESPN also has the Brewers at #1.
When talking about the model organizations in baseball, it's common to hear people in or out of the industry mention the Dodgers then quickly also reference the Rays, because finding regular success on a budget is obviously harder than with the biggest payroll. The Guardians also get mentioned.
This conversation is now shifting a bit to where the majority of people in the industry point to the Brewers, sometimes first depending on what part of the industry they represent. Milwaukee has been strong internationally for some time, but its recent run might be one we talk about for decades to come: Made, Jackson Chourio and Luis Pena headline the recent crop.
In the world of the draft, the Brewers are the new kings of finding later-round value, often in the high school and junior college markets, with Jacob Misiorowski, Logan Henderson, Cooper Pratt, Bishop Letson, Luke Adams and Josh Adamczewski among those finds. Their pro scouting (opposing minor leaguers) and player development (improving their own players) also have plenty of recent wins, including Andrew Vaughn, Caleb Durbin, Quinn Priester and Chad Patrick, just from their 2025 big league breakouts.
In addition to all of these avenues of talent, the Brewers tend to be adding prospects in deals -- Jett Williams and Brandon Sproat were added from the Mets for Freddy Peralta, and both made the top 100 -- rather than trading them. Put all of these players together and you can see why it was inevitable Milwaukee would take this title -- for the first time since I've been doing this.
Quote from: Jockey on January 29, 2026, 07:19:02 AMBrewers farm system ranked #1 in The Athletic - Keith Law, I think.
Yes. His top 10 are:
Brewers
Dodgers
Mariners
Pirates
Guardians
Nationals
Tigers
White Sox
Orioles
Red Sox
Quote from: MU82 on January 29, 2026, 02:27:48 PMYes. His top 10 are:
Here's my top 10 farm systems:
Brewers
Dodgers
Mariners
Pirates
Guardians
Nationals
Tigers
White Sox
Orioles
Red Sox
Dodgers up there because every team is their farm system.
Quote from: cheebs09 on January 29, 2026, 02:38:01 PMDodgers up there because every team is their farm system.
And because they don't have to trade to get top talent onto their MLB roster. They just wait until someone like Skubal is a free agent and give them an extra $50MM on top of what the Mets or Yankees will offer.
Quote from: cheebs09 on January 29, 2026, 02:38:01 PMDodgers up there because every team is their farm system.
They sign every free agent so they don't need to trade any of their young talent.
Quote from: Jockey on January 29, 2026, 12:38:45 PMBrewers tend to be adding prospects in deals -- Jett Williams and Brandon Sproat were added from the Mets for Freddy Peralta, and both made the top 100 -- rather than trading them.
Won't Williams and/or Sproat make the Opening Day roster?
Interesting tidbit from Yahoo Sports:
Longtime MLB reliever David Robertson — a 2009 World Series champion with the Yankees — announced his retirement on Friday, leaving a nearly unprecedented vacuum in the sport: For just the second time since New York's inaugural title in 1923, there's not a single active player who won a ring with the Bronx Bombers. The only other time that happened? 1995.
The Yankees' current 16-year World Series drought is just one shy of their longest ever (1979-95), not including the 21 years it took to win their first championship. 10 teams have won a title since New York's most recent in 2009: Dodgers (3x), Giants (3x), Astros (2x), Red Sox (2x), Rangers, Braves, Nationals, Royals, Cubs and Cardinals.
There will soon be a bidet in the White Sox clubhouse. (https://www.mlb.com/news/munetaka-murakami-bidet-white-sox-clubhouse?adobe_mc=TS%3D1770074204%7CMCMID%3D87686685975515794527649190100674423754%7CMCORGID%3DA65F776A5245B01B0A490D44@AdobeOrg&affiliateId=mlbapp-ios_webview_news-index&rsid=mlbios.at.bat.new.implementation)
Quote from: 18thandWells on February 02, 2026, 05:20:37 PMThere will soon be a bidet in the White Sox clubhouse. (https://www.mlb.com/news/munetaka-murakami-bidet-white-sox-clubhouse?adobe_mc=TS%3D1770074204%7CMCMID%3D87686685975515794527649190100674423754%7CMCORGID%3DA65F776A5245B01B0A490D44@AdobeOrg&affiliateId=mlbapp-ios_webview_news-index&rsid=mlbios.at.bat.new.implementation)
Yet another area where the U.S. trails the world.
Quote from: 18thandWells on February 02, 2026, 05:20:37 PMThere will soon be a bidet in the White Sox clubhouse. (https://www.mlb.com/news/munetaka-murakami-bidet-white-sox-clubhouse?adobe_mc=TS%3D1770074204%7CMCMID%3D87686685975515794527649190100674423754%7CMCORGID%3DA65F776A5245B01B0A490D44@AdobeOrg&affiliateId=mlbapp-ios_webview_news-index&rsid=mlbios.at.bat.new.implementation)
This is like Man in the High Castle where the US lost the war and had Japanese culture thrust upon us
The Mariners with a nice move, landing Brendan Donovan in a deal that didn't cost them any of their top prospects.
Just the latest dump from the Cardinals, who obviously are in serious rebuilding mode.
I did not have Detroit Tigers signing Framber Valdez for 3 years and $115m anywhere in my bingo card.
There will be some fascinating and entertaining reactions to this.
I'm sure paying Valdez $38M a year while going to court shortly to argue Skubal should get $19M a year is going to go over well.
Detroit signed Framburgular to a $38M AAV before even finding out if they'll pay Skubal $19M or $32M next year.
Precursor to another move?
Making a move to push for a WS in what they accept will be Skubal's final season?
Fascinating that they could be so acrimonious with Boras regarding Skubal, yet give another of his clients that big of a deal.
Like Bregman a season ago, I predict it will come out that Detroit had been offering Skubal a huge yearly amount but for a shorter contract, say 3 years, $200m, but Skubal/Boras wanted a longer deal.
I also predict that Skubal wins the arbitration and is in Detroit all season.
Interesting decision.