Scscsc89 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Commissioner says the DH will not be introduced in the NL in the "foreseeable future" whatever that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glduck Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mlb-power-rankings--hope-springs-eternal-as-camps-open-034229342-mlb.html thought this was interesting. it's just one set of power rankings (the pac-12 message board's favorite phrase!) but most of these things aren't too different. basically, the five best and five worst teams in baseball might all be in the NL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scscsc89 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Giants just gotta stay healthy -- which is always hard for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glduck Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 seems that nobody knows what to make of seattle this year, so everybody is sticking them in the 15-20 range in the spring power rankings with the caveat "they could contend, but with so many new pieces..." which is fine. the m's hardly have a storied history of expectations, but in recent years when people predicted big things -- 2010 (the cliff lee year) and last season -- things always go horribly wrong. note that last spring as some pubs were writing in the m's as their trendy world series picks, i had them on the outside of the playoffs looking in. seattle is only decent when nobody sees them coming, and even then "decent" is usually only good for 85-88 wins. looks like we'll be going into 2016 with... lf nori aoki 3b kyle seager dh nelson cruz 2b robinson cano 1b adam lind rf seth smith ss ketel marte cf leonys martin c chris iannetta i see two guys almost predestined to hit below .200, but if lind can have a typical adam lind-season he might be able to provide a little protection for our few major league-caliber hitters. i also hope marte can build on his strong rookie showing, he'd join seager as the only successful home-grown offensive players seattle has produced in the last fifteen years. as far as pitching goes, the consensus is we'll settle on: felix hernandez taijuan walker wade miley hisashi iwakuma james paxton with nathan karns a viable option to replace any weak links that emerge. karns had a strong rookie season for tampa last year, going 7-5 w/ a 3.67 era and a 145 k's in 147 innings (26 starts). houston and texas both look strong, the halos look meh but aren't without talent (jered weaver 80 mph fastball lol) and oakland, by virtue of finishing in last place season, is due for a miraculous turnaround 93-win season. so i think we'll probably finish in 4th place again. wee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glduck Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 i hate spring training. even the mariners can hit bad pitching, so we score 8 runs a game and i get jacked for the season because it finally looks like we have an offense and then we hit .215 as a team in april. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Hail Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Pablo Sandoval -- despite recently signing a 95 million dollar contract -- can't beat out 9th round draft pick Travis Shaw for the starting 3rd base job for the Red Sox. The Giants get bailed out once again by another washed up player who refuses to take their money and then makes them look brilliant after the fact when the sign for another team and shit the bed. Making matters worse for the Red Sox, Rusney Castillo -- fresh off a 5 year 72 million contract -- is now the 5th outfielder on the team! That's a tremendous amount of money that is being parked on the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scscsc89 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 It's amazing how the Dodgers and Red Sox can afford these failed contracts. Just goes to show how much money they're raking in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBug708 Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 Dodgers seem to want these contracts at the price of a prospect. I'm waiting for them to take on Pujols at the cost of Mike Trout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scscsc89 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 It's actually why I'm not worried about the Pac-12 falling behind the other P5 conferences in media rights money. Maybe it's because my school is one of the "haves", but: 1) as a fan, what fun is worrying about resources? That's someone else's headache. 2) even though it's not SEC or B1G money, it's still a lot of money. 3) As long as we get a spot in the NY6 rotation, what's the big deal. As baseball shows, it's not who has the most money, it's who uses it the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Hail Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 It's actually why I'm not worried about the Pac-12 falling behind the other P5 conferences in media rights money. Maybe it's because my school is one of the "haves", but: 1) as a fan, what fun is worrying about resources? That's someone else's headache. 2) even though it's not SEC or B1G money, it's still a lot of money. 3) As long as we get a spot in the NY6 rotation, what's the big deal. As baseball shows, it's not who has the most money, it's who uses it the best. 1. I worry about resources only because money is relative. 2. A lot of money vs way more money isn't a lot of money. Money is relative and when you are competing over the same assets, the people with less money are at a massive disadvantage. A lot of money doesn't buy what it used to when top tier coaches cost 5 million a year. USC as a private school with an amazing history is an exception to this rule. 3. Tell that to the teams in the bottom half of MLB revenue. Take a look at the 2016 salaries and tell me there hasn't been a decisive advantage for the teams in the upper tier vs the teams in the lower tier. Money creates almost insurmountable advantages and only a very small number of teams can overcome these advantages on a yearly basis. The ones that do are forced to play the long game: suck for years at a time, hope your scouts are good, stock pile talent, become the Houston Astros or Oakland A's for a season or two. Resume sucking. repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 And will get only more important when, not if, college athletes are paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scscsc89 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 And will get only more important when, not if, college athletes are paid. [i'll continue this over on the P12N thread] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scscsc89 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 3. Tell that to the teams in the bottom half of MLB revenue. Take a look at the 2016 salaries and tell me there hasn't been a decisive advantage for the teams in the upper tier vs the teams in the lower tier. Money creates almost insurmountable advantages and only a very small number of teams can overcome these advantages on a yearly basis. The ones that do are forced to play the long game: suck for years at a time, hope your scouts are good, stock pile talent, become the Houston Astros or Oakland A's for a season or two. Resume sucking. repeat. I tried telling it to the Royals but they had champagne stuck in their ears. Of course these teams are at a disadvantage. Don't like it? Institute a cap/tax, enjoy what you've got, or find a different team/sport. The Royals and Astros aren't going to be on top long but they're doing better than the Yankees and Red Sox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glduck Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I tried telling it to the Royals but they had champagne stuck in their ears. Of course these teams are at a disadvantage. Don't like it? Institute a cap/tax, enjoy what you've got, or find a different team/sport. The Royals and Astros aren't going to be on top long but they're doing better than the Yankees and Red Sox. mlb needs a BETTER cap/tax system. the current luxury tax is a joke. of the major north american sports leagues, i've always thought the nba got closest to getting it right. institute a soft and hard cap, and reward teams for re-signing their own players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBug708 Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 Problem/benefit with the MLB is a true minor league system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Hail Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I tried telling it to the Royals but they had champagne stuck in their ears. Of course these teams are at a disadvantage. Don't like it? Institute a cap/tax, enjoy what you've got, or find a different team/sport. The Royals and Astros aren't going to be on top long but they're doing better than the Yankees and Red Sox. So you went from, why should be worry about it, to, of course there's a disadvantage? Why not try to do something about that disadvantage? The Pac 12 has fallen further behind since Scott was hired and the disadvantage is growing. As for baseball, my interest has fallen off massively and a huge reason for that is the lack of a cap. The Royals are a top 15 payroll team and the Astros are the exception to the rule as I pointed out. Over a large sample size, the Astros are certainly not doing better than either the Yankees or Red Sox but I can why you shortened the sample size to fit your point. Compare the top 15 teams to the bottom 15 teams in pay roll and it's clear that money is far more important than who is good at spending it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scscsc89 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 So you went from, why should be worry about it, to, of course there's a disadvantage? No, I went from of course there's a disadvantage why worry about it to of course there's a disadvantage why worry about it. The Pac 12 has fallen further behind since Scott was hired and the disadvantage is growing. You can't be serious -- do you even remember how bad things were under Tom Hanson? There were football and basketball games that weren't even on television. The schools wanted to get paid & Scott got them paid. This argument has no merit. Why not try to do something about that disadvantage? Cause i am a fan. That's not my job. As for baseball, my interest has fallen off massively and a huge reason for that is the lack of a cap. So ... complaining about it hasn't helped? I think that was my point. The Royals are a top 15 payroll team and the Astros are the exception to the rule as I pointed out. Over a large sample size, the Astros are certainly not doing better than either the Yankees or Red Sox but I can why you shortened the sample size to fit your point. Compare the top 15 teams to the bottom 15 teams in pay roll and it's clear that money is far more important than who is good at spending it. So you switched from market-size to payroll? OK Look -- sports on any level is not and has never been about a fair playing field. To sit and worry about revenue and payroll seems pointless to me -- too much like work. But hey, maybe I am in the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Hail Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 You can't be serious -- do you even remember how bad things were under Tom Hanson? There were football and basketball games that weren't even on television. The schools wanted to get paid & Scott got them paid. This argument has no merit. I am very serious and it's quite simple. I'm surprised you don't understand. Percentage wise, we were more competitive in conference TV revenue with the other conferences than we are now under Larry Scott. Before the 2011 deal, the SEC was making 60 million in annual tv revenue while the Pac 12 was making 54 million. http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-pac-12s-business-model-will-change-college-athletics-072211 Let's ignore the fact that I'm right about this for a second. The fact that you can't even acknowledge that there is an argument to be had is well, dishonest. By 2018, Wilner projects TV revenue per school to look like this: SEC 35 million per school, Big Ten 33 million per school, Pac 12 22 million per school. While you give credit to Scott for "getting us paid," the fact is that the TV landscape changed significantly and every commissioner got their conference paid. The problem is that some were more successful at it than others. Cause i am a fan. That's not my job. I was obviously referring to Larry Scott. So ... complaining about it hasn't helped? I think that was my point. No, complaining doesn't help but this is a sports messageboard. Sorry for trying to discuss sports with you. I never said complaining helps. So you switched from market-size to payroll? OK Look -- sports on any level is not and has never been about a fair playing field. To sit and worry about revenue and payroll seems pointless to me -- too much like work. But hey, maybe I am in the minority. Even if we use market-size, your argument is still using the exception to prove the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scscsc89 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml I don't know -- the Reds, Rays and Pirates have all done pretty well too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Hail Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 They have 0 titles between them in the past 25 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.