MLB 2018

This forum is for talking about non-music-related stuff that the DBT fanbase might be interested in. This is not the place for inside jokes and BS. Take that crap to some other board.

Moderators: Jonicont, mark lynn, Maluca3, Tequila Cowboy, BigTom, CooleyGirl, olwiggum

User avatar
cortez the killer
Posts: 15455
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:22 pm

Re: MLB 2014

Post by cortez the killer »

A-Rod Doping Plan Most Potent Ever Seen

"At the end of the day, this was a potent cocktail of sophisticated PEDs stacked together to deliver power, aid recovery, avoid detection and create a home run champion."
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
- DPM

beantownbubba
Posts: 21745
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: MLB 2014

Post by beantownbubba »

Zip City wrote:
beantownbubba wrote:Over $30 Million per year for seven years for a pitcher. Man, am i in the wrong business. Well, at least he's in his prime.


And they say they still want to add a starting pitcher, despite having 8 or 9 of them


Well, it's true that you can never have too much pitching. You can overpay for it, though.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

Zip City
Posts: 17313
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Zip City »

beantownbubba wrote:
Zip City wrote:
beantownbubba wrote:Over $30 Million per year for seven years for a pitcher. Man, am i in the wrong business. Well, at least he's in his prime.


And they say they still want to add a starting pitcher, despite having 8 or 9 of them


Well, it's true that you can never have too much pitching. You can overpay for it, though.


I just don't understand how you play everyone. Kershaw, Greinke, Haren, Ryu, Billingsley, Capuano, and they're in on Tanaka? Christ on a cracker
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever

LBRod
Posts: 4362
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:15 pm
Location: Beneath Pacheco Pass

Re: MLB 2014

Post by LBRod »

Two billion dollars. The Yankees tried buying championships with some success.
Now it's the Dodgers turn.
Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff.

User avatar
Shakespeare
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Shakespeare »

capuanos a free agent and billingsleys out till the all star break

still a lot of pitchers but them pursuing tanaka is not as ridiculous as it seems. not to mention haren might be headed for a bullpen role if he keeps up last years inconsistency

neither is the kershaw deal. if he keeps up his current pace for five years (after which he can opt out) its a steal for LA cuz they get to pay for his prime years and then let him go where the money is if he wants to, but even if he starts to decline the dodgers will be out from the contract by the time hes 32. they wont be paying him into his late 30's unless they decide they want to later on

beantownbubba
Posts: 21745
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: MLB 2014

Post by beantownbubba »

Shakespeare wrote:capuanos a free agent and billingsleys out till the all star break

still a lot of pitchers but them pursuing tanaka is not as ridiculous as it seems. not to mention haren might be headed for a bullpen role if he keeps up last years inconsistency

neither is the kershaw deal. if he keeps up his current pace for five years (after which he can opt out) its a steal for LA cuz they get to pay for his prime years and then let him go where the money is if he wants to, but even if he starts to decline the dodgers will be out from the contract by the time hes 32. they wont be paying him into his late 30's unless they decide they want to later on


Zip, pitchers always break down. You truly can never have too much pitching, imho anyway.

Shakes, yes they're getting him in his prime, that's the only thing that brings the deal anywhere near the realm of the sane. If he wins 20 games/yr every year, they're still paying him $1.5 Million per win. Seems like a lot, considering the risks. He's won over 16 games exactly once in his career, btw. Even so, he's arguably the best pitcher in baseball, that's not the question. The question is how much is the best pitcher in baseball worth? OT1H, it's the Dodgers money and if they want to pay it to Kershaw, god bless him and I certainly have no stake or say in what the Dodgers do w/ their money. OTOH, just as a bunch of guys sitting around talking baseball it sure seems like a heck of a lot of money. But I suppose that only matters if one has a budget, which the Dodgers apparently don't.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
Shakespeare
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Shakespeare »

for what its worth i expected the kershaw deal to top 10 years or $300 million, so this actual deal is practically nothing to me. i was timidly awaiting the figures on this one knowing full well it would practically seal the deal of strasburg leaving the nats when the time comes, and i still feel thats the case, but the way this contract is assembled it looks like a win/win for kershaw and the dodgers. they get his prime years for what could become a cheap sum, he gets the chance to opt out and sign one more mammoth deal before his career is done. i dont know if he turned down more years or if they wouldnt offer it, but its brilliant either way

its a ton of money for sure but for the prime years of the best pitcher in the game right now $30 million a year is a steal. of course thats ridiculous but this is mlb in 2014, its gonna be ridiculous.

and yeah, watching the 2013 nats throw minor league arms out there every 4th and 5th day to replace the injured (ross detwiler) or the weak (dan haren) i can personally vouch that you can never have enough mlb ready starting pitchers. never

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

As Beantown pointed out its a reasonable deal because of his age. You can't really be looking for 20 wins a year though as wins are really not an indicator. A couple more Cy Young awards would work though. Personally even at his age I would never give a pitcher years like that. I think you have to figure that in those seven years he'll lose one to injury, maybe two. It just happens. It's more money than the Verlander deal but because of the age of Verlander that one is still the crazier one. Ah the Dodgers, another day at the office for Ned Coletti and his blank check.

I heard someone yesterday say that the Tanaka derby was down to the Cubs, Yankees & Dodgers. Personally I can't see him wanting to come to the Cubs and lose for two more years while the kids get ready. My money's on the evil empire.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

LBRod
Posts: 4362
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:15 pm
Location: Beneath Pacheco Pass

Re: MLB 2014

Post by LBRod »

Tequila Cowboy wrote: Ah the Dodgers, another day at the office for Ned Coletti and his blank check.

I heard someone yesterday say that the Tanaka derby was down to the Cubs, Yankees & Dodgers. Personally I can't see him wanting to come to the Cubs and lose for two more years while the kids get ready. My money's on the evil empire.


Old east coast or new west coast version?
Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff.

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

LBRod wrote:
Tequila Cowboy wrote: Ah the Dodgers, another day at the office for Ned Coletti and his blank check.

I heard someone yesterday say that the Tanaka derby was down to the Cubs, Yankees & Dodgers. Personally I can't see him wanting to come to the Cubs and lose for two more years while the kids get ready. My money's on the evil empire.


Old east coast or new west coast version?


Ha! East Coast. I didn't realize the Dodgers had reached that status. Ned Coletti makes a pretty dumpy Darth Vader.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

Zip City
Posts: 17313
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Zip City »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:
LBRod wrote:
Tequila Cowboy wrote: Ah the Dodgers, another day at the office for Ned Coletti and his blank check.

I heard someone yesterday say that the Tanaka derby was down to the Cubs, Yankees & Dodgers. Personally I can't see him wanting to come to the Cubs and lose for two more years while the kids get ready. My money's on the evil empire.


Old east coast or new west coast version?


Ha! East Coast. I didn't realize the Dodgers had reached that status. Ned Coletti makes a pretty dumpy Darth Vader.

If the Yankees are the "evil empire" because they grossly outspend everyone else, thus making competitive balance impossible, then the Dodgers are going to make them look like amateurs over the next decade
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever

User avatar
Shakespeare
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Shakespeare »

Zip City wrote:If the Yankees are the "evil empire" because they grossly outspend everyone else, thus making competitive balance impossible, then the Dodgers are going to make them look like amateurs over the next decade

you sure about that?

look at some of the biggest money teams in the game recently and look how well theyve done. the angels would like to have a word with you

conversely look at teams like oakland and st louis who dont spend a lot but always compete

in theory spending sprees like this do eliminate competitive balance, but i dont think its that cut and dry

Mike127
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:29 am
Location: Akron, OH

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Mike127 »

Shakespeare wrote:
Zip City wrote:If the Yankees are the "evil empire" because they grossly outspend everyone else, thus making competitive balance impossible, then the Dodgers are going to make them look like amateurs over the next decade

you sure about that?

look at some of the biggest money teams in the game recently and look how well theyve done. the angels would like to have a word with you

conversely look at teams like oakland and st louis who dont spend a lot but always compete

in theory spending sprees like this do eliminate competitive balance, but i dont think its that cut and dry


Hell, look at the Yankees for that matter. When they won 4 World Series in 5 years 1996-2000, they were doing it with mostly homegrown talent still on reasonable contracts. In the early to mid 00s was when they really entered their "buying championships" phase - Mussina, Giambi, A-Rod, Sabathia, etc. and from that point forward they only made the WS twice and won it once ('09).

LBRod
Posts: 4362
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:15 pm
Location: Beneath Pacheco Pass

Re: MLB 2014

Post by LBRod »

Tequila Cowboy wrote: I didn't realize the Dodgers had reached that status.

Always have been to Giants fans.
Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff.

beantownbubba
Posts: 21745
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: MLB 2014

Post by beantownbubba »

The always interesting Joe Sheehan on the Dodgers, Kershaw, etc:

As has been expected, the Dodgers reached agreement with Clayton Kershaw on a long-term contract that will keep Kershaw off the free-agent market for at least five more years. The deal could be worth as much as $215 million over seven years, and is guaranteed to be worth $150 million through five, making Kershaw the first baseball player to average $30 million in salary per season. It's taken us quite a while to get there; Alex Rodriguez was the first $20 million (and first $25 million) player when he signed with the Rangers for the 2001 season. Thirteen winters later, the next round number is breached -- and this time without competitive bidding.

Kershaw becomes the latest great young player to be signed by his original team rather than become a free agent. From 2009 through 2013, eight players have been worth at least 30 bWAR. Of those, just two -- Robinson Cano and Cliff Lee -- were not locked up before reaching the market. Lower the bar to 25 bWAR, and it's four of 17 who became free agents -- and Albert Pujols was 32 when he hit the market. Scan down from there and you find many more players who were signed to long-term contracts with their original team than players who made their money by declaring free agency. This is the biggest reason -- helped along by more aggressive revenue sharing and product-investment taxes -- that it took 13 years for the top end of the salary scale to rise by $5 million. The best players don't push the top of the scale forward through free agency any longer. Without Joe Mauer and Joey Votto and Justin Verlander on the market, top-end salaries rise much more slowly. We hear "$215 million" and "$30 million per year" and react sharply, but those figures are completely reasonable for the best pitcher in the game at a time when revenues are peaking.

A seven-year deal for a pitcher sounds like a huge gamble. The thing is, a one-year deal for a pitcher is a huge gamble. Pitchers get hurt, and we're not much better at predicting or preventing the injuries than we were 20 years ago. We've tamped down the workloads of top starters past the point of reason and spread the work of the bullpen among many pitchers at 15 pitches a pop. Beyond that, and with due respect to the people who work to keep hurlers healthy, we're guessing. We can take comfort in the knowledge that one serious injury -- a blown ulnar collateral ligament -- is reparable with a strong chance that the pitcher returns to form. The risk involved in signing Kershaw is in line with the risk of signing any pitcher, so you may as well sign the best. It's not as if Kershaw has to be completely healthy for 200 innings a year for the life of the deal for the Dodgers to make money on it. Kershaw has averaged six bWAR a season the past five years; if he pitched four years at that level and missed one completely, he'd be worth 24 wins. A conservative estimate of the value of a win is $6 million, so $144 million in value returned -- even if Kershaw misses a full year! Given that the Dodgers will be competing for postseason berths over the next five years, and given that Kershaw has been even more valuable than that of late, that estimate is surely low.

My use of "five years" is intentional. Kershaw has the option to void the final two years of the deal after 2018 and become a free agent, so this is technically a 5/150 deal with a player option. I won't speculate as to what Kershaw's market value will be five years and 15,000 pitches down the road. I do think the Dodgers should, in the back of their minds, consider the CC Sabathia example. Sabathia signed a seven-year deal with the Yankees after 2008, with an opt-out after 2011. While most opt-outs are bad news for the team -- the player leaves if he has value, stays if he doesn't -- Sabathia's opt-out struck me as a perfect chance for the Yankees to capture Sabathia's peak while letting someone else get stuck paying for the decline. Sabathia was terrific for three seasons -- 235 innings a year, 3.18 ERA, six bWAR a year -- then threatened to opt out. Instead of letting him do so, the Yankees gave him a one-year extension on his contract. Since then, Sabathia has averaged 208 innings a season with a 4.09 ERA and 1.9 bWAR a year. The Dodgers can get Kershaw's age-26 through age-30 seasons for below market value and then allow another team to pay for his decline phase.

This is an excellent deal for both team and player. The Dodgers retain the best pitcher in baseball at a price that means they make money on the deal. Kershaw doesn't have to sweat the next 3,000 pitches with as much as $300 million hanging in the balance.

It's certainly not the craziest deal reached by the Dodgers this week. Today, MLB approved the Dodgers' agreement with Time Warner that creates SportsNet LA, a Dodgercentric cable channel owned by Time Warner. The deal has been held up for reasons tied to Frank McCourt's bankruptcy and Guggenheim Partners' attempts to shield some of the money from revenue sharing. At estimates of $8.5 billion for 25 years, the deal could produce an average of $340 million a year for the Dodgers, but with just $44 million initially going into the revenue sharing pool, far less than the 34% the CBA calls for.

Set aside the money and the revenue-sharing implications, which themselves are worthy of an extended discussion. Twenty-five years? The Dodgers were World Champions 25 years ago. NBC showed a game of the week in 1989. Half the homes in this country didn't have cable back then. "Baseball Tonight" didn't exist yet. Cable television was a success, but not a monster. Satellite dishes were the size of pizza shops, rather than pizzas. You didn't carry a phone on your person. Any computer you owned was barely capable of showing you baseball statistics, much less baseball games.

Twenty-five years is an incredibly long time. Time Warner didn't exist 25 years ago. It was a decade away from being purchased by AOL. Read that sentence again. In 1989, Time Inc. and Warner Brothers were still 15 years from extricating itself from that mess. If I walked out of my apartment carrying what I do on most days and into January of 1989, I'd be regarded as an alien. I'd have more computing power in my backpack than the City of New York had in toto.

Given the staggering changes in technology, media and sports over the past 25 years, it's ludicrous to sign a 25-year contract. Clayton Kershaw for seven years makes infinitely more sense. Clayton Mortensen for seven years might make more sense. It's not as if 1989-2014 is some unique period in human technological history; sports fans in 1964 would have been astounded by full-color broadcasts, dozens of channels, instant replay from all kinds of angles, better graphics and the stereo sound available in 1989. Signing on to the 2014 business model for distribution of sports content -- making the many subsidize the few -- through 2038 is an enormous risk. Distributors are already passing on the costs of sports networks to their viewers at a rate that is creating backlash, and if that backlash grows, the financial model that underpins $340 million a year could crumble quickly. I don't think it's likely to happen in the short term; I do think that few people are smart enough to see more than five or ten years into the future at what social and technological change can do. Again, I remind you that AOL Time Warner was a real thing that happened. In this century.

The Dodgers, since getting out from under the Chavez Clampetts, have done an amazing job at turning their franchise into a cash cow. They'll certainly enjoy -- and spend -- the money this new TV contract throws off, at least for a little while. As long-term plays go, however, they're more likely to be happy with their pitcher than with their television partner. When an elbow blows, you lose a year. When a bubble pops, you can lose much, much more.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
cortez the killer
Posts: 15455
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:22 pm

Re: MLB 2014

Post by cortez the killer »

Mike127 wrote:Hell, look at the Yankees for that matter. When they won 4 World Series in 5 years 1996-2000, they were doing it with mostly homegrown talent still on reasonable contracts.

A strategy which their hated rival employed in winning 3 World Series over a ten-year span after failing to do so the previous 86 years.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
- DPM

Zip City
Posts: 17313
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Zip City »

cortez the killer wrote:
Mike127 wrote:Hell, look at the Yankees for that matter. When they won 4 World Series in 5 years 1996-2000, they were doing it with mostly homegrown talent still on reasonable contracts.

A strategy which their hated rival employed in winning 3 World Series over a ten-year span after failing to do so the previous 86 years.


And which the same front office guru is attempting to do on the north side, though with slower returns
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever

User avatar
Slipkid42
Posts: 4326
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Northern Neck of the Dirty South

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Slipkid42 »

cortez the killer wrote:
Mike127 wrote:Hell, look at the Yankees for that matter. When they won 4 World Series in 5 years 1996-2000, they were doing it with mostly homegrown talent still on reasonable contracts.

A strategy which their hated rival employed in winning 3 World Series over a ten-year span after failing to do so the previous 86 years.


To be fair, cortez; you could say that the Sox have won those 3 titles DESPITE having made some terrible free agent signings over those 10 years. Crawford, Beckett, Renteria, Gonzalez, Lackey & Dempster to name a few. They did seem to learn their lesson & make some shrewder FA signings that helped them win their last title & of course their shrewdest FA move of all is the one that helped them win all 3 titles, Big Papi.
A thousand clusterfucks will not kill my tiny light

Bill in CT
Posts: 3489
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:37 pm

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Bill in CT »

Slipkid42 wrote:
cortez the killer wrote:
Mike127 wrote:Hell, look at the Yankees for that matter. When they won 4 World Series in 5 years 1996-2000, they were doing it with mostly homegrown talent still on reasonable contracts.

A strategy which their hated rival employed in winning 3 World Series over a ten-year span after failing to do so the previous 86 years.


To be fair, cortez; you could say that the Sox have won those 3 titles DESPITE having made some terrible free agent signings over those 10 years. Crawford, Beckett, Renteria, Gonzalez, Lackey & Dempster to name a few. They did seem to learn their lesson & make some shrewder FA signings that helped them win their last title & of course their shrewdest FA move of all is the one that helped them win all 3 titles, Big Papi.

Lackey helped them win in 2013.
While it's true that Beckett's extension didn't turn out so well, before that he was a leading performer on the 2007 team that won. In 2007, he was voted the MVP of the ALCS against the Indians and also won a game against the Rockies in the World Series.
The closer you get to the meaning
The sooner you'll know that you're dreaming

User avatar
Slipkid42
Posts: 4326
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Northern Neck of the Dirty South

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Slipkid42 »

True enough, Bill; but the point I was really trying to make was that it wasn't exactly the homegrown model that cortez was alluding too.
A thousand clusterfucks will not kill my tiny light

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

Slipkid42 wrote:True enough, Bill; but the point I was really trying to make was that it wasn't exactly the homegrown model that cortez was alluding too.


No, but it was a hybrid model. Most of the winning teams of the past decade have either been of the build the farm system model or a hybrid of both that philosophy and money. The Yankees trouble started not because they ran out of money but because their farm system started to suck. Of course the Angels make a case for the hybrid model not working so well if the decisions made don't fit your team well. I think they would have been a better team had they never signed Pujols which will be an albatross around their neck for years. The Dodgers are an interesting case in that while they are spending like they were a small country they also have very quietly developed a very good farm system. No matter what for sustained success teams need solid prospects out of their systems. The Cardinals look like they could keep winning for 10 years with a rock solid system from which they can not only draw for their major league roster but have prospects to trade as well. The Pirates look to be in the same position with a competitive team already and the newly ranked #1 farm system in the game. Bottom line, money helps but their is no sustainable baseball model without a constant influx of blue chip prospects.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

User avatar
cortez the killer
Posts: 15455
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:22 pm

Re: MLB 2014

Post by cortez the killer »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:
Slipkid42 wrote:True enough, Bill; but the point I was really trying to make was that it wasn't exactly the homegrown model that cortez was alluding too.


No, but it was a hybrid model. Most of the winning teams of the past decade have either been of the build the farm system model or a hybrid of both that philosophy and money. The Yankees trouble started not because they ran out of money but because their farm system started to suck. Of course the Angels make a case for the hybrid model not working so well if the decisions made don't fit your team well. I think they would have been a better team had they never signed Pujols which will be an albatross around their neck for years. The Dodgers are an interesting case in that while they are spending like they were a small country they also have very quietly developed a very good farm system. No matter what for sustained success teams need solid prospects out of their systems. The Cardinals look like they could keep winning for 10 years with a rock solid system from which they can not only draw for their major league roster but have prospects to trade as well. The Pirates look to be in the same position with a competitive team already and the newly ranked #1 farm system in the game. Bottom line, money helps but their is no sustainable baseball model without a constant influx of blue chip prospects.

Bingo!

I assumed we were using the 90's Yankee model as an example. The Yankee model was a balance of home developed talent supplemented with key free agent signings. I don't think going strictly the free agent route or strictly the homegrown route will bear much fruit. There has to be a balance. And, of course, big market teams like New York, Boston, or Los Angeles can miss on either end and absorb the misses with deep pockets. You also need a little luck along the way, too.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
- DPM

User avatar
Slipkid42
Posts: 4326
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Northern Neck of the Dirty South

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Slipkid42 »

cortez the killer wrote:
Bingo!

I assumed we were using the 90's Yankee model as an example. The Yankee model was a balance of home developed talent supplemented with key free agent signings. I don't think going strictly the free agent route or strictly the homegrown route will bear much fruit. There has to be a balance. And, of course, big market teams like New York, Boston, or Los Angeles can miss on either end and absorb the misses with deep pockets. You also need a little luck along the way, too.


Sorry I misinterpreted that. I agree 100% with that assessment. There's still an advantage to the deeper pocket teams who can absorb those misses; but it doesn't seem as pronounced as it had been in the past.

WTF is up w/my Orioles? Angelos has deep enough pockets that he could improve the team greatly with a few key signings, yet all we have done this off-season is trade our studly closer for a minor league 2nd baseman. The O's need pitching as desperately as any team in baseball & yet we've only picked up a couple of so-so relievers. When will that fucker die?
A thousand clusterfucks will not kill my tiny light

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

I was actually surprised that Baltimore is not involved in the Tanaka sweepstakes. By the way on that front the latest scuttlebutt has the Cubs out in front with the Yankees still in it, the Dodgers falling off a bit after signing Kershaw and the White Sox surprisingly back in the hunt. Apparently the Dodgers have fallen a little out of favor with Tanaka's camp because he wants to be the undisputed #1 pitcher going into spring training which he won't be in LA.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

User avatar
Shakespeare
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Shakespeare »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:I was actually surprised that Baltimore is not involved in the Tanaka sweepstakes. By the way on that front the latest scuttlebutt has the Cubs out in front with the Yankees still in it, the Dodgers falling off a bit after signing Kershaw and the White Sox surprisingly back in the hunt. Apparently the Dodgers have fallen a little out of favor with Tanaka's camp because he wants to be the undisputed #1 pitcher going into spring training which he won't be in LA.

really? thats absurd. the kids clearly got good stuff but come on

i cant blame him for not wanting to go to the dodgers where hed arguably be their #4 at best, but expecting ace status before throwing a major league pitch is insane.

gotta imagine this sweepstakes is the yankees' to lose at this point.

seconded on the orioles bizarre offseason. i think that balfour debacle summed it up perfectly

and on that note, ive been disappointed to see the pirates not really do anything in free agency. theyre not my primary team but my dads a lifelong fan so it was cool to see them finally do well for a whole season. hope they dont slide back into mediocrity so soon after

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

Shakespeare wrote:and on that note, ive been disappointed to see the pirates not really do anything in free agency. theyre not my primary team but my dads a lifelong fan so it was cool to see them finally do well for a whole season. hope they dont slide back into mediocrity so soon after


I don't think they needed to do much and they're not the type of team to overpay for players which is inevitable when making signings off the open market. Their farm system was just named #1 by Baseball America and they will have some money and plenty of prospects to trade come deadline time. Not to mention the fact that their top prospect Gregory Polanco and 2 or 3 of their pitching prospects could be up by June. Bottom line they should be one of the best teams in the National League in 2014.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

User avatar
Shakespeare
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Shakespeare »

all true. i was just hoping theyd make one decent free agent splash, but they know their farm system better than me so if they didnt see the need to spend the money, so be it. last years deadline moves paid off pretty well so maybe thats the plan this year. the reds seem to be on shaky ground right now so the pirates could be right back in the hunt this year

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

Shakespeare wrote:all true. i was just hoping theyd make one decent free agent splash, but they know their farm system better than me so if they didnt see the need to spend the money, so be it. last years deadline moves paid off pretty well so maybe thats the plan this year. the reds seem to be on shaky ground right now so the pirates could be right back in the hunt this year


I think so. I'd call them the favorite, but unfortunately one can never rule out the Cardinals.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: MLB 2014

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

So it's being reported that the Dodgers are essentially out of the Tanaka sweepstakes. It's coming down to the Cubs & Yankees with some sources saying the White Sox and Diamondbacks are still sniffing around as dark horse alternatives. Fascinating stuff.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

jr29
Posts: 2133
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:28 pm
Location: Jackson, Tennessee

Re: MLB 2014

Post by jr29 »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:
Shakespeare wrote:all true. i was just hoping theyd make one decent free agent splash, but they know their farm system better than me so if they didnt see the need to spend the money, so be it. last years deadline moves paid off pretty well so maybe thats the plan this year. the reds seem to be on shaky ground right now so the pirates could be right back in the hunt this year


I think so. I'd call them the favorite, but unfortunately one can never rule out the Cardinals.


One certainly cannot. And by all accounts the Cards have made moves this off season that should make them better in 2014.

Post Reply