Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
gmen81

The MLB Thread- 2014 Season

Rate this topic

617 posts in this topic

Since the bluejays might actually win a few games, I've decided to get Into baseball

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very happy about Cabrera! As I said in the other thread, he's the perfect #2 hitter for the Jays. Switch hitter with great D and two years is not much of a gamble.

There will be another trade though as the team has too many position players for the bench right now.

This is all about timing. AA sees that the Yanks and Red Sox are the weakest they have been in 20 years, with the Rays slipping a little and the Os still a question mark, and the Jays are swooping in for the kill. Love it!

Edited by theminister
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. AA is really melking this for all it's worth....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEW YORK -- The most polarizing Hall of Fame debate since Pete Rose will now be decided by the baseball shrine's voters: Do Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa belong in Cooperstown despite drug allegations that tainted their huge numbers?

In a monthlong election sure to become a referendum on the Steroids Era, the Hall ballot was released Wednesday, and Bonds, Clemens and Sosa are on it for the first time.Bonds is the all-time home run champion with 762 and won a record seven MVP awards. Clemens took home a record seven Cy Young trophies and is ninth with 354 victories. Sosa ranks eighth on the homer chart with 609.

Yet for all their HRs, RBIs and Ws, the shadow of PEDs looms large.

"You could see for years that this particular ballot was going to be controversial and divisive to an unprecedented extent," Larry Stone of The Seattle Times wrote in an email. "My hope is that some clarity begins to emerge over the Hall of Fame status of those linked to performance-enhancing drugs. But I doubt it."

More than 600 longtime members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America will vote on the 37-player ballot. Candidates require 75 per cent for induction, and the results will be announced Jan. 9.

rest of the article is here............ http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=410456

Anyone think anyone of these guys belong in the Cooperstown? I certainly don't.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone think anyone of these guys belong in the Cooperstown? I certainly don't.

Keep them out of there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. If Pete Rose can't get in because he placed bets on games, (but never against his own team) then three players who cheated their way to the top shouldn't get in either.

BTW: I think banning Rose from the hall is garbage.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. If Pete Rose can't get in because he placed bets on games, (but never against his own team) then three players who cheated their way to the top shouldn't get in either.

BTW: I think banning Rose from the hall is garbage.

The biggest current injustice in professional sports.

If they want to uphold the ban on allowing Rose to be part of MLB in terms of being an employee of a team then fine but to keep denying him something he has earned over a career is a flat out travesty.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Hall of Fame should be treated as some kind of plum for the players to keep their noses clean. It is only because of baseball's previously limp-wristed approach to cheating in the past that they even see a need to get even with any players they think have tarnished the game. The all-time home runs leader belongs in the Hall of Fame and so does the all-time hits leader. So does Shoeless Joe Jackson. To think that inducting these guys absolves them of their guilt for cheating (or most likely not, for Jackson) is as silly as thinking that not inducting them absolves the MLB of guilt in their complicity with the steroid era.

I have posted this before but it bears repeating: I can't stand Roger Clemens, but I'm glad he got away with whatever he did. MLB never even tried to address their cheating problems during that era, and if they didn't know it was happening, that's a case of willful blindness. Men simply don't gain muscle that fast in their late 30's, no matter how well they eat or how much they work out, and anyone thinking critically should have seen how blatant it was that something was off. But baseball looked the other way while the home run record races reinvigorated their brand in the wake of the 1994 lockout. Then after the fact, they tried to save face by hanging the whole thing on the necks of the players who juiced their way to stardom and wealth. It doesn't mean those players did nothing wrong, but the league was just as guilty and the whole witch hunt against Bonds and Sosa, McGwire, Clemens, Palmeiro and all the rest is absolutely dripping with hypocrisy. When those guys get off, I think it's just deserts for the league that if they got away with allowing it, the players should get away with doing it.

Edited by Gretzky's Mullet
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, with Greinke signing with the Dodgers, their 2013 payroll is now over 210 million and counting.

In comparison, as Jeff Passan points out, the Houston Astros have a payroll of $800,000, representing one year of commitment to Philip Humber (plus the 5 million they owe the traded Wandy Rodriguez to pitch for the Pirates).

Not a whole lot of parity in that league. Even the Yankees sit in awe of the Dodgers' profligacy right now. Though I will laugh hysterically if (and when) this hodgepodge of overpaid stars falls short of expectation because of a lack of chemistry and surplus of inflated egos.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, an awful overpayment by the Dodgers. No pitcher should ever make that kind of money. They needed someone to hit around Kemp/Andre. Who knows, maybe they'll offer Hamilton $70 mil/year?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it's too much for Greinke, but the Dodgers basically have a massive money tree growing in the form of a huge TV deal from FOX (which naturally translates to a massive screw job to fans who get to suffer under baseball's ridiculous array of exclusive market blackout deals etc). So they don't even have to worry about how much they're spending right now. It's obscene really.

For all the money they're spending, i still think the Giants could win the NL West next year. I may be a little biased, but I see much more of a team here in Norcal compared to a big collection of individuals down the coast.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts on the Royals trading one of the best prospects in baseball for 2 decent pitchers?

Edited by gmen81
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it's too much for Greinke, but the Dodgers basically have a massive money tree growing in the form of a huge TV deal from FOX (which naturally translates to a massive screw job to fans who get to suffer under baseball's ridiculous array of exclusive market blackout deals etc). So they don't even have to worry about how much they're spending right now. It's obscene really.

For all the money they're spending, i still think the Giants could win the NL West next year. I may be a little biased, but I see much more of a team here in Norcal compared to a big collection of individuals down the coast.

Couldn't agree more. And being a Dodgers fan, and supposed to have mad hate for the Giants (which I don't have since Bonds left), I can definitely see that. That money tree could come back to haunt them. Just add another bat!!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more. And being a Dodgers fan, and supposed to have mad hate for the Giants (which I don't have since Bonds left), I can definitely see that. That money tree could come back to haunt them. Just add another bat!!!

Regardless of who ends up winning the West, the Dodgers will be in the playoff mix for sure. However, I don't think the team is still on the hunt for a bat, at least not a lineup shake-up, unless they think they can move an existing one. Really, they need to figure out what they have in Crawford, Ramirez and Gonzalez, the three major midseason pickups they got in salary dumps last year. Those three, plus Kemp and Ethier should all combine to make up the top of the Dodgers order next season, with AJ Ellis coming off a career best year and probably earning a starting job behind the plate. I don't know a lot about Luis Cruz, who pencils in as their third baseman, and Mark Ellis is more of a glove at 2nd, but I doubt they're counting on improving much above that. Frankly, when you add that group to the arms they have, the only thing really holding them back is a culture of underachievement (which they may have imported from Boston, really).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts on the Royals trading one of the best prospects in baseball for 2 decent pitchers?

Well, I think the Royals are both desperate and aware of an opening window in this case. Myers is a stud, but as Jeff Passan writes (and by the way, I think Yahoo's Jeff Passan might be the best baseball writer out there), prospects have been over-fetishized in the world of baseball punditry. Yes, he looks excellent, but so do a lot of guys that can't make the jump, while James Shields is a very safe bet for pitching reliability. The Royals are dealing from a position of strength, in that they have the best farm system in baseball, and so were the Rays, in that they had incredible pitching depth. Conversely, the Royals had a huge weakness in starting pitching, while the Rays have been anemic offensively. The Royals also see a division that's generally quite weak (even with the Tigers in it), and a pitcher who's battle tested by the AL East.

Anyways, it's a ballsy move by the Royals. If Myers reaches his ceiling, then it's probably a major loss for KC, but that's no guarantee, and if Shields pushes them up into contention, if only for 2 years, it might be worth it, particularly as Kansas City has such a bountiful harvest and a core oozing with potential that they hope will ripen on time. I imagine the Rays will probably "win the trade", in the sense that they have very little to lose by moving a pitcher with few controllable years left in exchange for a good crop of potential, while the Royals have clearly assumed far more risk, but may reap short term benefits that make it worthwhile.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dodgers working on a new contract for Kershaw. What the hell is THIS one gonna be worth?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dodgers working on a new contract for Kershaw. What the hell is THIS one gonna be worth?

Dodgers the first franchise with a quarter billion payroll?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with these ex-Red Sox players signing with their rival Yankees?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.