|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 6, 2015 13:54:24 GMT -5
Well then. Tweet from O'Day: Contrary to the news, I have not reached an agreement with the O's yet. I am flattered by all the attention, but reports are premature. It's probably just because physicals aren't a formality with the O's lol
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 6, 2015 15:05:23 GMT -5
There's something broken about the economics of baseball when Madson can get 32 million bucks and during a run of pretty solid baseball Daniel Nava hasn't made 10% of that in his whole career.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 6, 2015 15:11:03 GMT -5
I hope this overpaying relief pitcher trend doesn't last long. Maybe we could pick up Badenhop on a 3 year deal.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 6, 2015 15:36:26 GMT -5
There's something broken about the economics of baseball when Madson can get 32 million bucks and during a run of pretty solid baseball Daniel Nava hasn't made 10% of that in his whole career. The owners would approve a salary floor if a salary cap was also instituted. However, the union would never go for that. As a result, 90+% of all guys on 40 man rosters will never sniff a big payday. Blame the union for pandering to its richest 10%.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 6, 2015 15:47:24 GMT -5
Dodgers have signed Utley to a one year deal. Unknown $$.
A chance for him to repair his image ??
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 6, 2015 16:21:56 GMT -5
Ok so supposedly the Dodgers have all the smart people in the world working in their front office and all the money in the universe to spend and somehow the end result of that is signing a 37 year old second baseman with no knees who hit .212/.286/.343 last year. I'm mystified.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 6, 2015 16:25:21 GMT -5
The offseason is over?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 6, 2015 16:27:23 GMT -5
It's not like there's some other move they could make that would justify signing Utley.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 16,485
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 6, 2015 16:37:34 GMT -5
It's not like there's some other move they could make that would justify signing Utley. Give the Dodgers a break. They're thinking of the post-season. They need somebody who can disable the opposing SS.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 6, 2015 16:39:01 GMT -5
It's not like there's some other move they could make that would justify signing Utley. They're probably concentrating on finding a better extra inning long reliever specialist like we should be.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 6, 2015 16:43:51 GMT -5
Utley had the worst season of his career and still had a .131 Iso, which is pretty solid for a backup infielder. It was the first time in 10 years he'd had a sub-.330 OBP, and the first in 11 with a sub-.400 SLG. The Dodgers have enough money to see if he had a bad year or is just toast.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 6, 2015 16:45:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 6, 2015 16:49:28 GMT -5
This isn't a rhetorical question - what does that have to do with the Dodgers evaluation of Chase Utley?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 6, 2015 16:55:19 GMT -5
It's not like there's some other move they could make that would justify signing Utley. They're probably concentrating on finding a better extra inning long reliever specialist like we should be. Hahahahaha
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Dec 6, 2015 16:58:01 GMT -5
There's something broken about the economics of baseball when Madson can get 32 million bucks and during a run of pretty solid baseball Daniel Nava hasn't made 10% of that in his whole career. The owners would approve a salary floor if a salary cap was also instituted. However, the union would never go for that. As a result, 90+% of all guys on 40 man rosters will never sniff a big payday. Blame the union for pandering to its richest 10%. If the players allowed for a floor... I would expect the owners to respond with decreasing the ceiling. What the players should do is bargain for a decrease in the pre-arb and arb years.....mechanisms that depress their wages.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 6, 2015 17:01:27 GMT -5
This isn't a rhetorical question - what does that have to do with the Dodgers evaluation of Chase Utley? His presumption that the Dodgers have "all the money in the universe" is incorrect - And that presumption traces directly to the flawed $8.35 billion deal signed between the Dodgers and Time Warner - Which everyone in baseball (as well as the cable industry) is trying to figure out a means of "fixing."
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 6, 2015 17:01:47 GMT -5
I read one of the two articles and it doesn't seem like the Dodgers are in any bind. They signed their tv deal and get their money. Fans not watching doesn't change any of that unless they boycott and stop being fans. Or if they care, they can switch cable companies.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 6, 2015 17:06:49 GMT -5
I read one of the two articles and it doesn't seem like the Dodgers are in any bind. They signed their tv deal and get their money. Fans not watching doesn't change any of that unless they boycott and stop being fans. Or if they care, they can switch cable companies. Who says the Dodgers have to get their money? sports.yahoo.com/news/10-degrees--the-ugliness-of-the-dodgers--tv-mess-031743146-mlb.html"The Los Angeles Dodgers are saying that TV penetration doesn’t matter so long as checks are cashing. Dodgers owner Mark Walter told the Los Angeles Times earlier this spring the team has no plans to renegotiate its deal with Time Warner, putting the impetus on Time Warner to figure out how to profit while siphoning off the Dodgers’ annual take. Although the stalemate grows worse by the day, the fear that this could turn into another CSN Houston – in which Comcast’s regional sports network (RSN) with the Astros ran into similar carriage problems as SportsNet LA and ultimately declared for bankruptcy – is not yet there. Considering the evolving pay-TV landscape, with Comcast-Time Warner and DirecTV-AT&T mergers in the offing, the future is murkier than ever, and even a little fear would be healthy."
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 6, 2015 17:16:55 GMT -5
If the Dodgers were the least bit concerned with getting their money don't you think they would be taking an interest in resolving the so called issue.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 6, 2015 17:23:08 GMT -5
Dodgers/Chapman picking up steam. Interested to see what the Reds can pull for Chapman and compare it to the Kimbrel deal
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Dec 6, 2015 17:25:06 GMT -5
Dodgers/Chapman picking up steam. Interested to see what the Reds can pull for Chapman and compare it to the Kimbrel deal Not the same team control though, which is important.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Dec 6, 2015 17:31:46 GMT -5
If the Dodgers were the least bit concerned with getting their money don't you think they would be taking an interest in resolving the so called issue. Yeah. You must be right. Cable viewers are 100% happy with their cable bills, like sheep they will not explore non-cable viewing options and therefore all of the RSNs are financially sound and there is no TV rights fee bubble at all: www.seattletimes.com/sports/mariners/are-regional-sports-networks-a-bubble-ready-to-burst/"MLB teams, like the Mariners with Robinson Cano, are committing record salaries over the next decade based off anticipated revenue from new regional sports network contracts. The deals have soared in value because advertisers know viewers still prefer to watch sports live without recording and MLB teams each offer 162 such programming dates annually. But these deals have been increasingly likened to a real-estate “bubble” prone to bursting. Analysts warn that TV viewers aren’t all sports fans and are pushing back at paying more for an expensive RSN bundled into their cable bill.Few agree on what will happen if lawmakers eventually “unbundle” cable packages and give viewers choice of what they’ll pay for. Or, if too many irate viewers dump cable and satellite TV for internet-based streaming options. In the extreme, RSN deals worth billions could be dramatically reduced and threaten a network’s existence. Yet, huge player salaries awarded years earlier would still have to be paid." Now, let's face reality. What's going on here is a giant game of musical chairs that eventually leaves the teams with enormous player contracts that have to be paid - Regardless of whether the TV rights fees they were depending on to pay those contracts have disappeared when an RSN files for bankruptcy or, by some other means, been unwound. Like the Dodgers owner said..."As long as the checks keep cashing"...until they, in fact, stop cashing.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 6, 2015 18:00:05 GMT -5
If the Dodgers were the least bit concerned with getting their money don't you think they would be taking an interest in resolving the so called issue. Yeah. You must be right. Cable viewers are 100% happy with their cable bills, like sheep they will not explore non-cable viewing options and therefore all of the RSNs are financially sound and there is no TV rights fee bubble at all: www.seattletimes.com/sports/mariners/are-regional-sports-networks-a-bubble-ready-to-burst/"MLB teams, like the Mariners with Robinson Cano, are committing record salaries over the next decade based off anticipated revenue from new regional sports network contracts. The deals have soared in value because advertisers know viewers still prefer to watch sports live without recording and MLB teams each offer 162 such programming dates annually. But these deals have been increasingly likened to a real-estate “bubble” prone to bursting. Analysts warn that TV viewers aren’t all sports fans and are pushing back at paying more for an expensive RSN bundled into their cable bill.Few agree on what will happen if lawmakers eventually “unbundle” cable packages and give viewers choice of what they’ll pay for. Or, if too many irate viewers dump cable and satellite TV for internet-based streaming options. In the extreme, RSN deals worth billions could be dramatically reduced and threaten a network’s existence. Yet, huge player salaries awarded years earlier would still have to be paid." Now, let's face reality. What's going on here is a giant game of musical chairs that eventually leaves the teams with enormous player contracts that have to be paid - Regardless of whether the TV rights fees they were depending on to pay those contracts have disappeared when an RSN files for bankruptcy or, by some other means, been unwound. Like the Dodgers owner said..."As long as the checks keep cashing"...until they, in fact, stop cashing. None of this makes me think signing Chase Utley was a wise move.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 6, 2015 18:17:35 GMT -5
Chase Utley's fWARs, 2012 to present: 3.2, 3.9, 4.4, 0.0
As James mentioned, his peripherals were still pretty solid for a middle infielder, and his big decline was BABIP-related. The Dodgers are betting that'll bounce back and that he'll have a better chance staying healthy in a bench role. For what is likely a modest guarantee, that's a pretty reasonable bet to me.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 6, 2015 18:27:13 GMT -5
If the Dodgers were the least bit concerned with getting their money don't you think they would be taking an interest in resolving the so called issue. Yeah. You must be right. Cable viewers are 100% happy with their cable bills, like sheep they will not explore non-cable viewing options and therefore all of the RSNs are financially sound and there is no TV rights fee bubble at all: www.seattletimes.com/sports/mariners/are-regional-sports-networks-a-bubble-ready-to-burst/"MLB teams, like the Mariners with Robinson Cano, are committing record salaries over the next decade based off anticipated revenue from new regional sports network contracts. The deals have soared in value because advertisers know viewers still prefer to watch sports live without recording and MLB teams each offer 162 such programming dates annually. But these deals have been increasingly likened to a real-estate “bubble” prone to bursting. Analysts warn that TV viewers aren’t all sports fans and are pushing back at paying more for an expensive RSN bundled into their cable bill.Few agree on what will happen if lawmakers eventually “unbundle” cable packages and give viewers choice of what they’ll pay for. Or, if too many irate viewers dump cable and satellite TV for internet-based streaming options. In the extreme, RSN deals worth billions could be dramatically reduced and threaten a network’s existence. Yet, huge player salaries awarded years earlier would still have to be paid." Now, let's face reality. What's going on here is a giant game of musical chairs that eventually leaves the teams with enormous player contracts that have to be paid - Regardless of whether the TV rights fees they were depending on to pay those contracts have disappeared when an RSN files for bankruptcy or, by some other means, been unwound. Like the Dodgers owner said..."As long as the checks keep cashing"...until they, in fact, stop cashing. Do you even read the posts you respond to?
|
|