JosephC

Only illegal gambling. If gambling is to be done, they want sure that it is done through a legal sportsbook (that MLB is partnered with), so the owners can profit from it. This after 100 years of saying no player can be involved in gambling because it may affect the integrity of the game.

No way. I still use the chart at Ourlads, as up to a couple years ago, tends to trend better with what has actually occurred in the past. According to that chart- Chargers get - #11, #23 Vikings get - #5, #69 (3rd), #110 (4th) -that would be a pretty even deal. If the Vikings are pretty desperate, I could see them only asking for the 4th rounder back, but to just do #5 for #11 and #23 is borderline crazy to me. Now if the completely unexpected happens and QBs go 1 & 2, someone trades up to #3 and takes Harrison, and the Cardinals (who have extra picks) take the attitude of, "screw it, we are just going to stay here and take the guy we want"...meaning the unexpected happens and one of the big 3 QBs makes it to #5, that would change things. But for JJ McCarthy, I just can't see it with the way the landscape currently sits.

If I was Snell, I would have overruled Boras and taken the 150 million. There were 58 pitchers who threw at least 150 innings last year. Snell was 16th in xFIP (3.62) and 28th in SIERA (4.06). His ERA-FIP was -1.19, the biggest negative number by a fairly significant number (Josiah Grey was #2 at -1.03, next closest was -0.68), His ERA was a huge outlier when looking through the rest of the numbers. Interestingly enough, Corbin Burnes had a 3.80 xFIP and 4.02 SIERA. Burnes lead the league in BABIA at .244, Snell was 3rd with .256. Interesting the things one stumbles across when checking out some of the numbers. Of course, Burnes ERA (3.39) was more in line with what it "should have been," as compared to Snell's ridiculous looking 2.25.

My guess is the 3rd pick would cost the Vikings #11, #23, #108 (4th rounder) and their 2025 3rd round pick. I don't think it will take another 1st round pick to get up there, but it should take more than just #11 and #23. The Patriots also need a QB, they will not move out of that spot unless they wind up at least a bit on the plus-side for trading down.

I don't think #11 + #23 gets the Vikings any higher than #5. Decent chance that Williams, Daniels, Maye goes #1/#2/#3 and it would be very hard to get Arizona out of that #4 spot if Harrison in on the board. I don't think they make this move if they are drooling over McCarthy. He'll be overdrafted for sure, but to use the #11 pick, trade 2 second rounders, and move down about 50 spots late in the draft...to take a QB at #5 that seems to rank about 15th on prospect lists seems like too crazy of a move...even for the Vikings. Could work out for Green Bay as it does seem to me that the top tier QBs are mostly overrated (as normal), so it sure wouldn't bother me to see the Vikings end up trading a couple drafts away for one of these guys. They have any really attractive players that they can afford to trade away to get up there, or are they going to have to package #11, #23 and next years #1 to get into the top 3? Since the Bears market for Fields turned out to be a non-market, if I were them I would take #11, #23, #108 and a 1st rounder and 4th rounder in 2025. That would give the Bears 3 of the top 23 picks this year, and they would have 2 1st rounders, 2 second rounders (second pick is from the Panthers) and 2 fourth rounders in next year's draft, giving them an excellent opportunity for them to get a QB next year. And how good would the Bears and Vikings be next year. Bears definitely should get better with adding 3 first rounders, Vikings could be worse with having a rookie QB out there. Bears and Vikings 2025 1st rounders could end up being better than the #11 and #23 picks the Vikings currently hold.

If you have an offensive line that can consistently open holes 10 yards wide, where the running back doesn't have to find a hole, then Guerendo is your man. Too bad the guy has zero vision and subpar balance for a running back. He is a straight-line runner with great speed, and that is it. Only got to play at Wisconsin when guys in front of him got hurt, went to Louisville, and again got most of his playing time because the guy in front of him got dinged up. If Bartolini could actually snap, I don't think a 3rd/4th rounder for him would be out of the question. But his snapping really didn't seem to improve, I don't know if it can be fixed. He wasn't a very good guard. I don't think I could pick him before the 6th.

Only interested if they have a corporate mode where you can play a phone or apparel company and can bid on players to place them at certain schools, construct marketing plans for each player, figure out how much of the money you spend on players is really not spent because it is becomes a business write-off, which all turns into a competition to see how your investments/returns compare with that of the other companies competing in the same landscape. Just imagine the thrill of owning the nations number one recruit, sending them to USC...and the bitter taste of defeat when turd-brain decides to shoot somebody when he mistakenly thinks that someone stole his stash of weed.

The Buck's location on Midvale closed years ago, they then moved to a spot on University Ave and then closed that one. At the time, the owner said that they would be re-opening when they found a new location...but they never did. I wouldn't be surprised if it's already been 10 years since the spot on University closed. Bucks is damn good, so it's a real shame there isn't one on this side of town anymore. The Cottage Grove location is still in business.

I was the guy who was defending Rocky's earlier in this thread because I would still argue that if you limit the discussion to the quality of the toppings, they are at the top of the list among the chains. However, them ditching the whole-wheat crust was a terrible blow. I rarely get their pizza anymore. Can't remember the last time I did a whole pie, although maybe once every three months will swing around and get a couple slices. Whole west side of Madison pretty much blows for getting a pizza delivered. Roman Candle was really good, but they went out of business. The fascination of Jets wore off pretty quick. It is pretty much down to Glass Nickel if you actually want something that is pretty good...otherwise you might as well just grab something off the Pizza Hut deal page (ho-hum).

I really don't follow things like I used to, but just looking at the WAR values and figuring surplus value, I think the Mets got themselves a pretty good bargain on Taylor. Not going to go into a full breakdown of the math, but Houser would have very little value IMO. He only has one year of control left, and over the last 3 season he's been an average 1.0 bWAR/fWAR player per season. I'd only put his surplus value at +0.7 million, and I value what I term fringe prospects (Crow fits here) at +2.2 million. On the other hand, Taylor has 3 years of team control remaining and over the last three years has averaged 1.4 bWAR/fWAR per season. Next year will be his age 30 season, but even if you start subtracting WAR for 2025 and 2026, I'd feel pretty safe that his value is about 14.4 million over the next three years. With a projected arbitration salary of 1.7 million next year, if he stays on the same trajectory, he's probably only makes 8.4 million over that timeframe, and that might be a stretch. So that's +6.0 million in surplus value...pretty good deal for the Mets to give up a fringe prospect and get 3 years of a 1.4 WAR player who carries a very low salary for his experience level.

The thing that gets lost in all of this is what a terrible contract this is from the "baseball value" perspective. While UCL damage certainly isn't what it once was, and often pitchers come back with increased velocity after Tommy John #1, the success rate of pitchers after TJ #2 is a bit more uncertain. https://www.mlb.com/news/pitchers-to-have-tommy-john-surgery-twice?partnerID=web_article-share And I would argue that many of the listed "came back strong" have actually been pretty average. Eovaldi has the big name, and since the second TJ he has had two 3+ WAR seasons, but in the six seasons following TJ #2 he has averaged less than 2 bWAR per season and is almost a lock to miss at least a bunch of starts. Daniel Hudson got shipped to the bullpen and has been a 1.8 bWAR pitcher over the last 10 years (that's not 1.8 bWAR per season, that's a total of 1.8 bWAR over 10 season). Chris Capuano after 2008, wow, I cannot believe the guy even suggested that. Capuano was an annual 0.35 bWAR player following his second TJ. I wouldn't be surprised if Ohtani comes back far stronger than any name on this list, but I'd bet just about anything that one more arm injury will end his days as a pitcher. Doesn't matter if it's a third TJ or a significant shoulder injury, that arm will likely be shot after the next one...which is pretty likely to happen since he will already have had has second significant elbow injury at the age of 28. No doubt the guy is a great hitter, but over the last 3 years his average annual bWAR/fWAR as a hitter is pretty much right at 5 WAR. I have no argument, none whatsoever, if you want to argue that his bat makes him a annual 40 million dollar player for 2024 and the next few seasons after that. But 70 million per year is a ridiculous stretch. Taking a complete guess, I'd project Ohtani's WAR values over the next 10 years as follows: 2024 = 5.5 WAR as a hitter = 5.5 WAR 2025 = 5.0 WAR as a hitter + 3.5 WAR as a pitcher = 8.5 WAR 2026 = 5.0 WAR as a hitter + 4.0 WAR as a pitcher = 9.0 WAR 2027 = 4.5 WAR as a hitter + 2.5 WAR as a pitcher = 7.0 WAR (predict the next arm injury happens in the last third of this season) 2028 = 4.0 WAR as a hitter = 4.0 WAR 2029 = 4.0 WAR as a hitter + 0.5 WAR as a pitcher = 4.5 WAR (they put him on the mound but due to mediocre performance, decide his days as a pitcher are over) 2030 = 3.5 WAR 2031 = 3.5 WAR 2032 = 3.0 WAR 2033 = 2.5 WAR 51 WAR total. $13.72 million spent for every 1 WAR received. That's pretty bad from a $/WAR perspective. Just pulling one example out of the hat, Fangraphs had Yelich's 2023 value at 33.1 million after a 4.1 WAR season....33.1/4.1 = 8.07 million per WAR. And as people who follow this will know, dollars / WAR has not increased in quite some time, in fact has decreased as maybe 5-7 years ago a WAR was considered to be worth 9 million. And that number is based on big-market baseball, as obviously the small-market teams are not going to jump into the free agent markets and give a 3 WAR player a contract that is worth 24 million per season. There will be the talk from the media that the Dodgers have unlimited funds so it doesn't matter, but it's still 700 million tied up in one guy that could have been spent on different players that returns a better dollar/WAR ratio. I also wouldn't buy the idea that this will drum up so much more interest in Dodger baseball, as we are not talking the Brewers or Royals here, this is the Dodgers and last time I checked they didn't seem to have any problems selling tickets (or anything else). This contract has little chance of being a Strasburg or Chris Davis disaster, but I'm pretty confident that in 2034 we will be looking at this contract and saying that it was a pretty bad deal from a "baseball value" perspective.

The total amount of the contract gets divided up and an "equal share" get applied to each year of the contact. So if MLB designed the competitive balance tax in a reasonable manner, even with the Dodgers paying 97.1% of the salary after the contract expires,,,it still should be 700 million / 10 years = Ohtani's salary is 70 million and appears as 70 million on the "Competitive Balance Tax Payroll" for the Dodgers each season from 2024 through 2033. However, due to the design of the CBA, even though the Dodgers are paying him 700 million, the contract is only deemed to be worth $460,814,760 from the player's perspective as they figure the player will lose $239,185,240 by not having that money to invest now, thereby the player loses the capital gains, distributions, dividends, interest that he would have earned if he would have had the full amount of that contract across the length of the contract. Since this is the way it is calculated, Ohtani's "Competitive Balance Tax Payroll" number for the Dodgers will be $46,081,476 for each season from 2024 through 2033, not $70,000,000. Exactly why a player should elect to receive deferred payment, would end up wiping $239,185,240 off the of money that should be part of the payroll for the purpose of calculating the Competitive Balance Tax Payroll is a big mystery. The Dodgers are still paying him 700 million, why should 34% of that be exempt?

? 700 million does not equal 460 million. Saying Ohtani is getting paid 700 million, but that 700 million isn't really 700 million...it's really only 460 million because he will lose out on capital gains/interest/dividends that he would have earned from 2024-2033, does not change the fact that the Dodgers will still be paying him 700 million dollars. If the Dodgers are paying him 700 million dollars, then it stands to reason that the Dodgers should be "charged" 700 million dollars as part of the competitive balance tax.

There have been a couple media outlets that have reported that Ohtani could avoid paying the high California taxes. See the following: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/dodgers/2023/12/11/shohei-ohtani-contract-los-angeles-dodgers-heavy-deferrals/71885939007/ Yet, considering Ohtani earned about $40 million in endorsements last year, easily a record for a baseball player, it’s hardly as if it will affect his modest lifestyle. Besides, deferring such a massive amount of money saves Ohtani from paying about 13.3% in California state taxes. If he moves from California after his contract expires, he’ll avoid the high taxes. Effective on Jan. 1 the state income tax rate increases to 14.4%. Ohtani doesn't earn the 680 million dollars of deferred money until he is actually paid that money, and he won't be paid that money until the current contract expires...and he may no longer be a resident of that state from that date forward.

It's garbage. Saying that Ohtani's 700 million is really only 460 million due to loss of income from gains, dividends, interest is a perfectly legitimate argument FROM THE PLAYER'S PERSPECTIVE. But when looking from the team perspective and the concept of dodging the competitive balance tax, the only thing that matters is how much the team pays a player and how much of that money is "eligible" for the tax. The Dodgers will be paying Ohtani 700 million, Only 460 million of that will count towards calculating the competitive balance tax. From the team's perspective, there is no doubt that it is a tax dodge. And with as money hungry as California politicians are, I'd actually be pretty surprised if we don't see a few representatives from that state really start grumbling about this. Top income rate in that state is 13.3%. I realize it's a progressive tax and the first dollar earned is not taxed at the same rate as the 2,000,000th dollar earned. Just to make the math easy, let's say the effective tax rate for a 70 million dollar earner is 13%. I also realize that players pay taxes on where they play games, so let's just say Ohtani will play 15 road games in the state of California, for a total of 96 games annually in the state. 96/162 = 59.3% of his earnings occur in California. .593 * 700 million * .13 tax rate = 53.96 million. But since he is deferring all that money, his earnings over the 10 years of the contract is only 20 million. .593 * 20 million * .13 tax rate = 1.5418 million. So, if after the last year of this contract, Ohtani up and leaves California, the state is out over 52 million in revenue due to these deferred payments. If Ohtani relocates to a state with no income tax, it's a massive "rich guy tax dodge"...pure and simple. Even if Ohtani goes back to Japan when the deal ends, and has to pay 45% (got the number from a quick internet search, not sure on how accurate that is) on that 680 million dollars in deferred earnings, it's still better than the 37% federal rate + 13.3% California rate = 50.3% tax rate.

The biggest irony to this season - it seemed like many people in Madison disliked the Longo hire. Not because they didn't like him, not because they disliked the spread or air raid offense, but because Longo was one of those super-hot coordinators and they figured he would be in Madison one year before jumping to a head coaching job. I don't think they have to worry about that now.

The big advantage in hiring Espada is that he would have the complete lowdown on all the cutting edge cheating methods employed by MLB teams. I suspect they have become much more sophisticated than the old "bang on a garbage can" technique. Who knows, maybe he could actually get Yelich to start hitting the ball in the air again.

The biggest difference between Hiura and Chourio is that Hiura was no longer a prospect. At the end of 2019 his rookie status was gone and he was a MLB "proven" .938 OPS guy with well over 300 plate appearances. It appeared his only downside was he might get stuck at DH, but his near-masher status indicated an immediate move to DH wouldn't be that much of a problem. Chourio is young, not saying his numbers aren't impressive for the levels he's been playing at, but he's still been a .780 OPS guy in AA and an .851 OPS guy in AAA in an extremely small sample size. Hiura isn't the only recent Brewers that should make one think twice. There is also the Jonathan Singleton story. His deal was for 10 million which doesn't seem like much by today's standard, but at the time it was an "unprecedented" deal (see following article) for a player that hadn't played in the majors. We all know how that turned out. https://www.mlb.com/news/astros-prospect-jon-singleton-to-join-astros-agrees-on-extension/c-77872300#:~:text=Marc Krauss was optioned to Triple-A. The deal,million%2C according to a Major League Baseball source. I would not offer Chouria a big deal until he has a full year of MLB experience under his belt.

Couldn't agree more. This gets more and more ridiculous by the day. It started at 290 million. Then it became 360 million for a 13 year extension. Now the latest I see is 411 million from the state, 67.5 million from the county, 67.5 million from the city = 546 million for a 20 year extension. Of course, don't forget that originally Miller Park was sold to the public as a 300 million dollar project that would be a 50/50 private/public split. The original 150 million price-tag sold to us turned into 600+ million by the time the local sales tax ended. Looks like that 150 million will soon turn into 1.15+ billion. Regardless of any lease, it's a guarantee that Attanasio or whoever owns the Brewers in 2040 are going to come to us and say the stadium is now a 40 year old junk heap and it's time to forget about the last 10 years on the lease, bulldoze the stadium and build me a new one which will likely carry a 3 billion dollar price-tag by that time. But, but, but...these projects bring in so much revenue they pay for themselves. Anybody in this state that pays attention would have to be a complete fool to believe that. Just look at the Bucks and their arena. Shortly after that deal was done, MPS had their first referendum in 26 years because they needed more money. The Bucks arena has been such a financial windfall for the area that the city and county both had to raise taxes to be able to pay for what they are terming essential services. If the Bucks arena was such a great deal for the area, you could never tell by what has happened since then. It is just so unnecessary for the taxpayer to be continuously soaked by these professional sports franchises. Forbes estimates the current Brewer revenue at 294 million. There are 27 years between now and 2050. 27 years * 294 million = just short of 8 BILLION dollars. We really need to give this guy 546 million dollars? I say let that guy move the team after 2030, public is much better off IMO rather than handing over 546 million now and potentially having him and politicians gouge the public for another 3+ billion dollars in 2045 when he claims he "needs" a new stadium. This money pit is endless. Just cut the cord now!

This would have been much more interesting if pea-brained Manfred hadn't killed the August waiver trades.

If a player retires, a team does not have to pay the remainder of the salary. Fielder could no longer play, but the Rangers had an insurance policy on his contract. So when it was determined he could not play, the team went to the insurance company and made the claim, allowing Fielder to not play and still get paid...resulting in his retirement. There was some provision in the insurance contract that Fielder had to remain on the 40-man roster, and Fielder was on the 40 man roster for a couple years after he retired until the Rangers and the insurance company worked out another financial deal that allowed them to remove Fielder from the 40 man roster. As far as Strasburg, if he retires the Nationals do not legally owe him the remainder of his contract unless that changed in the latest CBA, which I don't think it did. Even if he cannot pitch, he would still earn his salary by not retiring, showing up and rehabbing his injury. It's safe to say at this point that the team doctors (and probably other doctors to provide more opinions) have concluded that he will never pitch again. Following is just speculation on my part, Strasburg demanded the rest of the contract be paid, so he could show up and go through the motions of rehabbing and eat up resources (trainers, equipment, other staff time) for nothing since he could no longer pitch and still get paid, or he would just retire if the Nationals were still willing to pay him. Either way, he's still getting paid. So the Nationals likely just decided to pay him instead of going through the false facade that he is rehabbing and may pitch again one day, and having him eat up resources that could be directed at players who can still play. Considering he spent his whole career with the Nationals, it wouldn't surprise me if there is a "personal services contract" aspect to this deal where he continues to work with the Nationals doing various, minor PR stuff for the team.

Beats Chris Davis for the worst contract in MLB history IMO, providing the early reports are correct and the Nationals will pay him the remainder of his contract. 7 years, 245 million End result = 8 games pitched, 31 1/3 innings, 32 hits allowed, 17 walks, 28 strikeouts, 1.56 WHIP, 5.69 FIP, -0.5 bWAR Not a wise contract considering the history of elbow problems and shoulder inflammation issues that he had for years before signing the deal. This guy was prime candidate #1 to have him arm fall off and it's no surprise that this was the end result.

I'd be pretty disappointed if I was a Vegas resident. So we'd be getting a notoriously penny-pinching owner who is building the smallest stadium in the league in what is the smallest market in the league. The Brewers billed Miller Park as a 300 million, 50/50 public/private split giving the impression that it would be a 150 million dollar investment. Bill so far (not even counting all the tax breaks) is 605 million and what will be another 290 million very soon (I predict that number will end up being quite a bit higher than that), so we are up to 895 million which is just a shade under 6 times what was originally sold to the public. So if the A's are looking at 360 million of free money right off the bat, it's probably a reasonable bet that that will mean 2+ billion when freeloading billionaires and dishonest politicians have their way with the public dollars. No way MLB allows this franchise to flounder all the way through the first five years as that would look bad and not help their expert pilfering of public money for future projects. But when I am looking at a cheap owner in the smallest stadium in the smallest market in the league and the long-term projections of that comes with that...at what I reasonably expect to be a 2+ billion dollar price-tag over time...I'd be more than happy to throw them back to Oakland and let them deal with the constant headache of having to shell out free money to a crybaby billionaire.

I don't see it lasting for Teheran. May have the 1.56 ERA, but the 4.85 xFIP and 4.80 SIERA indicate that the ERA will rise, and possibly in dramatic fashion. I always suspect that K rate might have too much of an impact on xFIP and SIERA when it comes to heavy ground-ball pitchers, but Teheran GB% is only at 37.7, and while he throws a sinker, the numbers throughout his career show that he has never been a ground ball pitcher. The BABIP is .235 and the HR/FB% is 7.7, both low numbers that indicate he's been pretty fortunate so far.

McGinn's coverage has historically tended to be very good, as he is very well connected with NFL front office people and generally doesn't inject very much of his own opinion when it comes to evaluating prospects. According to him, OL and WR seem like the really weak groups this year, with TE and CB being the strongest.