MLB Offseason Thread - 2018-19

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:28 pm

naednek wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:16 pm Giants dodged a bullet.

As a Dodger fan I have to agree. The Giants could spend that kinda money in better ways.

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:35 pm

Scuzz wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:28 pm
naednek wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:16 pm Giants dodged a bullet.
As a Dodger fan I have to agree. The Giants could spend that kinda money in better ways.

Giants need more than 1 player to make them a contender again. Harper wasn't going to fix anything other than bring in butts onto seats.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:36 pm

Salvador Perez has a UCL injury and is likely out of the year.

We have lots of good young catchers but none of them are ready to jump to MLB yet.

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:06 am

LA is hopping mad that the Dodgers went through the pretense of wanting to sign him, while knowing damn well that he would never accept their offer. Now the Dodgers are $13M under the cap, basically got nothing for Kemp and Puig whom they traded to get money to buy free agents, and are probably going to be dead in the water in three years. Kershaw is probably hurt again as well, So hey things may get more competitive this year and the following years in the NL West.

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:59 pm

Lorini wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:06 am LA is hopping mad that the Dodgers went through the pretense of wanting to sign him, while knowing damn well that he would never accept their offer. Now the Dodgers are $13M under the cap, basically got nothing for Kemp and Puig whom they traded to get money to buy free agents, and are probably going to be dead in the water in three years. Kershaw is probably hurt again as well, So hey things may get more competitive this year and the following years in the NL West.

Sounds like great news to me

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Sat Mar 02, 2019 1:01 pm

naednek wrote:
Scuzz wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:28 pm
naednek wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:16 pm Giants dodged a bullet.
As a Dodger fan I have to agree. The Giants could spend that kinda money in better ways.

Giants need more than 1 player to make them a contender again. Harper wasn't going to fix anything other than bring in butts onto seats.

Such as a reliable bullpen

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:29 am

Mike Trout is about to get PAID, to the tune of $430 million over 12 years.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:19 am

Did no one learn from the A-Rod deal?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:22 am

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:19 am Did no one learn from the A-Rod deal?

A-Rod's deal worked out fine. He was one of the best players in baseball over that contract. The Rangers didn't put anything around him, so they couldn't compete, but the Yankees did, and did quite well as a result.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:32 am

I suppose Pujols finishing out in 2021 will clear up some more cap space.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:28 pm

I was thinking of asking for what we think the OOver-under is on the number of playoff victories for Trout's career.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:21 pm

The Meal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:28 pm I was thinking of asking for what we think the OOver-under is on the number of playoff victories for Trout's career.

With Scioscia gone it should be bumped up to at least 5.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:13 pm

The Meal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:28 pm I was thinking of asking for what we think the OOver-under is on the number of playoff victories for Trout's career.

Perhaps the question is, who makes it back to the playoffs first, Mike Trout or Connor McDavid?

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:24 pm

The NL East is just going to be insane this year. Mets, Phillies, Nats and Braves all have good teams. I really think the Harper signing by the Phillies isn't as big a deal as a lot of the press is making out. He hasn't even been that great the last couple of years. He's a good player sure, but he's not Trout.

I'm just hoping the Mets are at least competitive. With how insane that division is I can't really expect them to make the playoffs. We do still have a freaking awesome pitching staff if it's healthy. IF

Trout's WAR was 10.2 last season. Harper? 1.3...

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:33 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:19 am Did no one learn from the A-Rod deal?

The Angels have recently signed a $3b 20 year TV deal with a local station. Trout is only 26. Locking him in at $36m per year (and the deal actually wipes out the last 2 years of his current deal which had 2 years at $66m left) is probably a steal in the long run.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:39 pm

Scuzz wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:33 pm
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:19 am Did no one learn from the A-Rod deal?
The Angels have recently signed a $3b 20 year TV deal with a local station.

Did no one learn from the Ameriquest Field in Arlington deal?

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:49 pm

Look, it's obvious no one is paying any attention to the Rangers, OK?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:10 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:49 pm Look, it's obvious no one is paying any attention to the Rangers, OK?

We didn't even get our post-Showalter World Series.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:26 pm

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:29 pm

Scuzz wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:33 pm
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:19 am Did no one learn from the A-Rod deal?
The Angels have recently signed a $3b 20 year TV deal with a local station. Trout is only 26. Locking him in at $36m per year (and the deal actually wipes out the last 2 years of his current deal which had 2 years at $66m left) is probably a steal in the long run.

Was that recent? I thought that deal was the rationale for Pujols and CJ Wilson. Like 2011-2012.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:59 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:29 pm
Scuzz wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:33 pm
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:19 am Did no one learn from the A-Rod deal?
The Angels have recently signed a $3b 20 year TV deal with a local station. Trout is only 26. Locking him in at $36m per year (and the deal actually wipes out the last 2 years of his current deal which had 2 years at $66m left) is probably a steal in the long run.
Was that recent? I thought that deal was the rationale for Pujols and CJ Wilson. Like 2011-2012.

ESPN has mentioned it several times today, so I doubt it goes back that far. But my flawed memory seems to remember hearing something about it before this year anyway.

And some ESPN guy also said Trout's contract was bigger than the Rays entire teams package for this year.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:24 pm

Scuzz wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:59 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:29 pm
Scuzz wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:33 pm
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:19 am Did no one learn from the A-Rod deal?
The Angels have recently signed a $3b 20 year TV deal with a local station. Trout is only 26. Locking him in at $36m per year (and the deal actually wipes out the last 2 years of his current deal which had 2 years at $66m left) is probably a steal in the long run.
Was that recent? I thought that deal was the rationale for Pujols and CJ Wilson. Like 2011-2012.

ESPN has mentioned it several times today, so I doubt it goes back that far. But my flawed memory seems to remember hearing something about it before this year anyway.

Found an archive dated December 08, 2011:

The Angels have agreed to a new deal with Fox Sports worth at least $3 billion and expected to cover 20 years, two parties familiar with the deal said Thursday. The parties declined to be identified because the deal has yet to be officially announced.

So like 7 years ago.

Scuzz wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:59 pm And some ESPN guy also said Trout's contract was bigger than the Rays entire teams package for this year.

I posted Starks tweet earlier where he says that Machado, Arenado, Trout, and Harper's combined $1.3B salaries are ~$300M more than the the Rays' combined salaries. Ever. All 21 years worth.

Trout's $430M deal is bigger than any team's current salary, I'm pretty sure. Boston was #1 last year on opening day around $230M.

His $35M annualized salary may be higher than the Rays' but that would seem really low. I don't think any team was under $50M last year.

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:14 pm

The Angels are also considering leaving Anaheim as well and this could factor into that. Last I read they were looking at Long Beach, which would be interesting and at least has some public transportation to it from DTLA.

Also few believe Kershaw will pitch in a game anytime soon (I think months) so naednek should be happy

.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:48 am

The Long Beach Angels sounds better than the Los Angeles Angels of Long Beach.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:08 am

I thought this was an interesting chart for lots of reasons, but especially the list of big cities without pro sports teams in the upper right.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:46 am

Virginia Beach - Norfolk Tides (AAA)
Providence - Pawtucket Red Sox (AAA)
Richmond - Richmond Flying Squirrels (AA)
Louisville - Louisville Bats (AAA)
Hartford - New Britain Rock Cats (AA)
Birmingham - Birmingham Barons (AA)
Rochester - Rochester Red Wings (AAA)
Grand Rapids - West Michigan Whitecaps (A)
Tucson - Tucson Saguaros (Ind); Tuscon Toros [defunct- 2010]
Tulsa - Tulsa Drillers (AAA)

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:51 am

Virginia Beach - Norflok Admirals (AHL)
Providence - Providence Bruins (AHL
Richmond
Louisville
Hartford - Hartford Wolf Pack (AHL)
Birmingham
Rochester - Rochester Americans (AHL)
Grand Rapids - Grand Rapids Griffins (AHL
Tucson
Tulsa - Tulsa Oilers (CHL)

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:59 am

Norflok. My hometown wonders how you would pronounce that.

Also, the Admirals are back in the ECHL.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:09 am

pr0ner wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:59 am Norflok. My hometown wonders how you would pronounce that.

Also, the Admirals are back in the ECHL.

(sic)

Wiki

On January 29, 2015, the Anaheim Ducks announced that they would be moving their AHL affiliate, the Norfolk Admirals, to San Diego as one of five charter members of the AHL's new Pacific Division.[1] The next day, the Edmonton Oilers announced that their outgoing ECHL team, the Bakersfield Condors (who would also be supplanted by a new Bakersfield Condors in the AHL), would move to Norfolk and take on the Admirals name and logo.

So, the Bakersfolk Condorals?

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:49 am

The Meal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:08 am

I thought this was an interesting chart for lots of reasons, but especially the list of big cities without pro sports teams in the upper right.

Hoping Portland can hop into that unoccupied Orange zone soon.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:00 am

The Meal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:08 am

I thought this was an interesting chart for lots of reasons, but especially the list of big cities without pro sports teams in the upper right.

Detroit and Phoenix occupy an interesting spot. And some of the X's are interesting as well.

Also, Lake Erie Bros/Rust Belt don't like soccer I guess.

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:24 am

More interesting to me would be a chart like that which also correlates population and/or average salaries with those teams. In other words is there a larger population area that is not served by a team while smaller pop areas get a team?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:28 am

Lorini wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:24 am More interesting to me would be a chart like that which also correlates population and/or average salaries with those teams. In other words is there a larger population area that is not served by a team while smaller pop areas get a team?

My commission rates are quite reasonable.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:37 pm

Lorini wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:14 pm The Angels are also considering leaving Anaheim as well and this could factor into that. Last I read they were looking at Long Beach, which would be interesting and at least has some public transportation to it from DTLA.

Also few believe Kershaw will pitch in a game anytime soon (I think months) so naednek should be happy .

Where would they build a stadium in Long Beach? And who would pay for it?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:41 pm

Scuzz wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:37 pm
Lorini wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:14 pm The Angels are also considering leaving Anaheim as well and this could factor into that. Last I read they were looking at Long Beach, which would be interesting and at least has some public transportation to it from DTLA.

Also few believe Kershaw will pitch in a game anytime soon (I think months) so naednek should be happy .
Where would they build a stadium in Long Beach? And who would pay for it?

Probably Mexico.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:41 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:24 pm

So like 7 years ago.

Nevermind.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:36 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:00 am
The Meal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:08 am

I thought this was an interesting chart for lots of reasons, but especially the list of big cities without pro sports teams in the upper right.
Detroit and Phoenix occupy an interesting spot. And some of the X's are interesting as well.

Also, Lake Erie Bros/Rust Belt don't like soccer I guess.

Are Cincy and Columbus and Chicago not "Rust Belt"?

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:36 pm

Here is a story on the proposed Long Beach site. No mention of who pays, but:

In Long Beach, the team is reportedly eyeing a 13-acre parking lot close to the city’s waterfront. That site is also slated for use during the 2028 Olympics, when temporary water polo and BMX arenas are slated to rise as part of a larger competition zone in the city’s downtown area.

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:38 pm

Thought I read both parties were paying but we'll see. Hopefully they don’t make the same mistake Irwindale did.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:44 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:36 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:00 am
The Meal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:08 am

I thought this was an interesting chart for lots of reasons, but especially the list of big cities without pro sports teams in the upper right.
Detroit and Phoenix occupy an interesting spot. And some of the X's are interesting as well.

Also, Lake Erie Bros/Rust Belt don't like soccer I guess.
Are Cincy and Columbus and Chicago not "Rust Belt"?

Not sure but don't think so and no and no.