brooks_quichenick

This is what I'd go with too, maybe flipping Villar and Arcia depending on who's hot.

Yea, Mark can definitely afford it, just a matter of if he's willing.

Bingo. Cut out some of the ads if you want to shave time off of baseball games. Otherwise these little pitch clock/mound visit changes here and there are merely superficial and won't amount to much if any change.

On nights like tonight where a team like the Rays shrugs and just gives up, it's cool that the Padres are making an effort to get better. With Tatis, Urias, Gore etc on the rise they could be really scary in a couple years, and they'll have a playoff experienced veteran at 1B who everyone in the clubhouse seems to love. Good for 'em. Also, this really made me laugh

8 years with an opt-out after year 5 per Jon Morosi

Scott Boras is turned into a villain by ownership because he demands fair value for the players he represents, which is exactly what a good agent does for his client. I used to be in the "I hate Boras" camp too, but within the last few years I've begun to realize that all that mentality does is help the owners in their demonization of the players for wanting their fair share of revenue. I want less money for the owners and more for the players, therefore Boras is good.

It's even wilder that we defend the pocketbooks of billionaires over the millionaires (and tons of guys playing for league minimum) who actually perform on the field for us. Thank god it's a caviar minimum wage... heaven forbid they have to raise families on the real minimum wage or the real average salary... You're preaching to the choir dude. I'm simply saying it's illogical and completely mind-numbing for fans to side with billionaire owners over the players. Really not a difficult concept to grasp.

It's even wilder that we defend the pocketbooks of billionaires over the millionaires (and tons of guys playing for league minimum) who actually perform on the field for us.

I'd personally prefer the Brewers sign Cobb over Arrieta, and not for money reasons as I truly want Mark A (and every owner) to spend as much as he can. I just think over the next 4 years Cobb would be a more valuable pitcher for the Crew, and I'm also a little wary of former pitchers of division rivals who get discarded. When the offseason began I was hoping that one or both of Cobb and Chatwood would be Brewers.

Arcia is still much younger than the average MLB player, and he's been well below the average at every stop in his pro career, but at every stop he made offensive improvements after some time at each level. I fully expect him to take a step forward and surprise with the bat this season. I think a Francisco Lindor offensive comp is not out of the question for Arcia in the next year or two at all (probably not 33 HRs, but I think he's got 20+ potential coming very soon).

http://albethke.blogspot.com/ I can only be heard on Al's Rambling's now. The HH19 Twitter's out there are all fakes. So is that blog just some random right-wing guy posting things from twitter about Trump? Where's the baseball info?

Why would a person do that? If you could get $500 each for $100 seats you'd sell them for $100? Just being a nice person I guess? I sell tickets for face for concerts/sports because I don't like making the effort to rip people off for a profit on something I had no part in creating.

I'd argue that scalping is bad regardless of how you justify it. If you're not planning to attend a game, just don't buy the tickets. If you have to sell them because you can't or don't want to attend, sell at face value.

The Yankees had to compete with the Mets' Tebowmania

The Brewers just got done paying Matt Garza $50 million. For a grand total of 26 wins in four seasons. Should we be demonizing players who demand what you are calling "fair market value"? You're dang right we should! Granted there are players who do live up to the hefty contracts they sign, but there are far more who don't. Owners are just as much to blame as players for letting it spiral to this point. Matt Kemp signing an 8-year contract for $160 million and Ellsbury's 7-year, $153 million contract are not fair market. They were dumb, and the teams that hold those contracts deserve the ridicule they get. And guess what ... reigning in these contracts is putting the Brewers on an equal playing field with the big-market teams. That's a good thing. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that because the players are receiving a large sum of money that they are going to produce according to that large sum of money going forward for all of the years on the contract. I'm saying that those contracts are given to them because of how they performed in the years where their salaries were suppressed due to the MLB financial structure. I see no purpose in demonizing players for trying to earn what they deserve in proportion to their production as a player up to the point of free agency. I also completely disagree that reigning in contracts is a good thing because it somehow levels the playing field. It's a bad look for baseball to have an increasingly antagonistic relationship between ownership and the players. Even with these "bad contracts" you're referencing specifically, all of the owners of those teams made lots and lots of money those years! They were just fine financially, and will continue to be, especially if they can continue to convince the average fan to direct their animosity to the players on the field and not themselves.

It's not totally for past performance, but my point was that the system as it's set up pays players far less than they're worth production-wise when they're younger, so that when they reach FA and get their first big contract, often times it's the start of their career decline. So in essence they're recouping the surplus value of their first few years when they were underpaid in regards to their overall production.

Free Agency is paying for past performance, for the money they should have gotten while their salaries were suppressed with team control/arb, so yes, Kemp was worth that contract. If the percentage of franchise revenue that goes to players' salaries goes down while franchise revenues go up, then the players are not receiving what they are worth. Salaries should climb along with revenues. Follow that philosophy, and before long we're going to be paying $175 for a bleacher ticket and $45 for a hot dog. Why? If the revenues are going up, which causes the salaries to go up, then the profit for the owners should stay the same. So what you're saying is that the owners may just be greedy, insanely rich guys who will arbitrarily raise ticket/concession prices because they just can't be content with their already absurd cash flow? I agree. I think part of the problem with baseball fans thinking like GM's and Owners by demonizing players who demand fair market value contracts is that player's contracts are widely available for anyone to look at. We all see how many millions and years certain players get, and we can ooh and ahh at the amount of money, because it certainly is alot. But we aren't allowed to really get a peak at Ownership revenues, it's not advertised all over MLB Network and Sports pages everywhere. And what those guys are making is just astronomical compared to the players, who we all pay to see.

LOL, that is EXTREMELY subjective. Is Kemp "worth" the contract he got? Heyward? Cueto? Ellsbury? Those kind of contracts are moronic. Yeah, you can't suspend players for not signing contracts, obviously. But it's been predicted that these huge, long contracts couldn't continue, and this is probably the beginning of that. Free Agency is paying for past performance, for the money they should have gotten while their salaries were suppressed with team control/arb, so yes, Kemp was worth that contract. If the percentage of franchise revenue that goes to players' salaries goes down while franchise revenues go up, then the players are not receiving what they are worth. Salaries should climb along with revenues.

Suspend unsigned Free Agent's because Owners/GMs don't want to pay them what they're worth? I have now seen it all.

What they feel they deserve is the contracts from 3-5 years ago that are now mostly horrible contracts for the teams that signed them. Boras can say whatever he wants, most deals into a players late 30s end horribly for the team. And it doesn't change the fact that the players collectively bargained for the deal in place...and them colluding is completely not OK. This is a weird year for free agents, if these guys were smart...they'd bet on themselves on a 1 year deal for $25-30 million and take part in the frenzy that will be the 2018 offseason. I'm sure teams would line up for a deal like that. Heck Darvish could probably sign 2/50 with an opt out after year one...protects himself in case of injury but lets him hit the market in 2018. The players cannot collude by definition lol Why is everybody so hellbent on defending billionaires who have a long history of collusion in this sport specifically? Makes no sense

I absolutely loathe Trevor Bauer as a person. I'd hate to have to root for him on the Brewers. Archer, Salazar, anybody else please.

Sure, maybe you can say that teams are getting "smarter" by not giving out big FA contracts to guys in their 30's, but that's the way the entire league is set up for the players! Their only chance to earn what they're actually worth comes in free agency, so if owners/gm's aren't going to participate (due to being just so super smart) and pony up in free agency anymore, then something has to give. The players have every right to suspect collusion, especially with the long history of it in the sport. I don't want a player's strike as much as any fan, but I'll absolutely support the players if it happens. In the end, what needs to happen is the players getting paid what used to be their big FA money much earlier in their careers. Cut out the arb years, or at least most of them. Owners will always adjust and find ways to chip away at labor gains, so workers have to adjust in kind and fight back. Story as old as time.

Yes, he did interviews at the fan fest event last weekend. He also did an interview with Barstool Radio that isn’t safe to post here, but you can find if you search for it on Twitter (warning, the host is extremely annoying, vulgar and lewd). Par for the course with Barstool. They're awful.

I know you’re being sarcastic, and this is a topic for another thread, but yes - labor is the source of all wealth, and in baseball that means the players. Owners aren’t turning double plays, hitting game winning home runs, inspiring kids around the world, etc. They are merely leeches who siphon the surplus value of players’ labor and place it directly into their pockets. Half the league isn’t even making an ounce of effort to win games right now, yet those teams will still reap massive profits. What about that is good for baseball?