madbad2000

The Orioles are wrapping up a homestand right now. If the options were to trade Manny today and give him a final curtain call at Camden Yards in front of the fans or let him play in the All Star Game as an Oriole, I would assume the curtain call is the better option. The local sports hosts mentioned this already and the broadcast team last night brought it up about coming out to the park today to see Manny for likely the last time as an Oriole. The All Star Game is not worth anything and you do have a small risk of something happening. I know I'd prefer the curtain call at home. Manny getting traded is a done deal and I am certain that fans will give him a warm thank you for his contributions when the announcement is made.

I'm not sure how much that matters. While the game is close, the tickets are fairly expensive and most have been snagged up by Nats fans. Orioles fans know Machado is gone, so not sure how big of a draw it will be to see him get a few ABs during the ASG. And if Orioles fans aren't willing to buy tickets to a normal game to see their players, how many will want to drop a few benjamins for what little of Manny they will get to see. I checked on tickets for HR derby because of Jesus and I'm not going to drop that much for a ticket to the event or the actual game. I'm not even sure about $35 bucks for the Fan Fest event.

The Transition Tag is a great move since it gives them the right to match. The 3 options are Unrestricted FA, Transition Tag or Franchise Tag. UFA and Transition Tag let you see what the market values that player. The Transition Tag gives you that fallback to match if you are comfortable with that going rate. I would also argue that the Transition Tag likely lowers the overall value slightly in that teams know that the work they put into an offer sheet is likely moot since the Bears have the ability to match. Placing a Franchise Tag on Fuller automatically jumps negotiations to the top tier since you are showing you value that player as one of the top players at the position league wide. The Bears placed the Transition and guaranteed just over $12M...the Franchise tag would have guaranteed $15M. Matching the Packers offer guarantees $18M and the entire 4 year deal comes in at an AAV of $14M which puts Fuller at about the 18th highest CB deal. I'd say that worked out great for both Fuller and the Bears.

I have never been, but I do find Google Maps incredibly helpful when going to a game at a new stadium. You can get the N/S layout of the stadium and produce a pretty good estimate of where the shade will be during what parts of the game. It is also great for getting a layout of the area, identifying parking, restaurants, other sights, etc. Make sure you do street view if available and "walk" around to get a better feel.

The debate is not mutually exclusive. I can be against both the players and the owners. I can even go granular and be with the Players on one topic and with the owners for another. The biggest problem I have is the continual focus of the players on the highest end contracts. It seems their strategy is to get the absolute most money as possible for the few top end players and then everyone below feeds a bit more off of that due to comps. The problem with that strategy is that it really only benefits the few at the top when you have a defacto cap (luxury tax) and we have a system that is not setup/incentivized for equal spending all the time (cap and floor). I find the use of collusion a tough sell in this case because it's quite obvious from the outside that things have changed in terms of the system, strategies being used and timing of this class. It has all converged into a unique off-season where value is being placed in other areas, much to the chagrine of the free agents that expected the status quo. With so many players in the union, you would think there would be more focus on diverting revenue across the board to help everyone out ON TOP OF the mega deals for those few elite players that get those deals. And for crying out loud, work to get your minor leaguers paid a living wage.

I think a lot of the public posturing that we are seeing now is relevant to this off-season first and foremost. Tony Clark/Boras are trying to scare teams into signing the remaining free agents because that is for who they work (Union/Agents looking out for players). Players expect each year to have their comparables increased through new, record setting deals because it affects salaries from other free agents on down the line to include arbitration. That is not happening this year due to the perfect storm of players available, team strategies (rebuild/go for it/stay under luxury tax) and the massive class for next year. Their arguments will be blown out of the water next year as we will (likely) see multiple $30M+ deals signed across the board for OF, IF and SP. As for give and take, that is a tricky situation. You have two different battles. Internally amongst owners (usually small/large market) and then the collective owners vs. players. Internally there is that debate of the compeitive landscape financially to include revenue sharing. If large market owners are giving money to smaller market teams they want to see those teams use it for payroll and not pocket it. The whole point is to make the lower end more competitive. Smaller market teams want a more balanced landscape and that will likely only come from a cap. Players likely don't want a cap because it stifles their earning potential. But in the current landscape there is too much incentive to complete rebuild because that is the best way to compete against the money for an extended window of opportunity. And that hurts the players because it removes teams from the market. What I would like to see: Raise the salaries for Minor Leaguers already. Stop forgetting where you came from (Major Leaguers) and do the right thing. International Draft. It really only benefits the incredibly young Latinos (usually) that make a life altering check with few fulfilling that promise. The system is already proven to be exploited by advisors (crooks) taking advantage of these kids. Similarly, MLB should make a big investment by improving facilities and networks throughout all of these major hotspots for talent to help these kids out. Increase in minimium salary at Major League level. Guarantee a certain % of revenue to players based on end of year figures. Gross, not Net. The amount over and above allocated salaries for the year will be paid out to players based on amount of games actively played and this payment does not affect salary cap as that is a flat rate for every player regardless of team. Have a salary cap with penalties for not spending to a certain percentage every year.

I was reading that Frazier took less to be closer to his home in NJ. Supposedly his taste of playing with the Yankees stoked that and he was driving the desire to stay in NY. Makes sense if he took less to play with the Mets. Sometimes money isn't the main driver.

I've spent the past 4 years in the Baltimore area (20+ minutes from Camden yards) and I listen to sports talk quite a bit. The Orioles are the team in this town when they win and the fans pack the place. There is huge incentive and expectation to win consistently. With the historically terrible year that they had with starting pitchers, they need to find some. In terms of payroll, the Orioles can spend some money. They are not at the tip top, but they can easily be in the top ten year in and year out. Once you get past NY, LA, BOS, Chicago Cubs..the Orioles would fall into that next tier. Think Philadelphia money and the same blue collar chip on their shoulder. The owner will spend to get wins and be in the hunt. The city has been spoiled with winning through the Os and Ravens the past 5-10 years. They are also nearing the end with Showalter as Manager and want to give it one last hail mary. I think it's fairly obvious that they need to break it down. They have a few nice pieces to sell and some nice young building blocks for contention. Starting pitching is a black hole and they would need to get 1-2 arms back in every deal. I would punt this year in a sort of Yankees reload deal. Trade Machado and Schoop for as many arms as you can pry away. If you can find a sucker for Chris Davis, great. If not you have to hope he puts it together and chases 60 bombs. It is crazy how bad this team needs starting pitching. The Britton injury was the dagger. They have had a great bullpen recently and has been a big part of their success. Schoop is best friends with Manny Machado. The talk of trading Machado must not have sat well with him to make him skip fanfest.

Because they are sore losers.

I tend to agree with you. The Dodgers fans that I know do not want anything to do with Darvish because of those last few games. My coworker made the pilgrimage for Game 7 and he gets red in the face talking about Darvish.

Wow, that tank tax idea is terrible. It will be incredibly hard to avoid the incentive to tank. Even with the luxury tax, baseball is still inherently lopsided in terms of how teams operate. The difference in small market and large market is significant to sustained success. Small market teams can win, if you follow your formula and it hits. Large market teams can more quickly recover due to their higher spending capacity. The tank tax idea seems to really benefit the big markets. If you are forcing teams to put together a middling roster to avoid tanking, you set up the teams that are able to put more talent on their roster to feast for longer knowing that the likelihood of these teams making the playoffs is very small. So while these lower teams may win 70 instead of 65, your playoff run is not affected either way. Until you even that field like the NFL, you will never get rid of that incentive. The closest thing that would eliminate tanking is similar to soccer with relegation. The problem is that we don't have a lower league as that threat of relegation. The whole point of the draft is to balance the league by getting the best young talent to the teams that need it. The tank tax has the ability to really cripple a franchise for a lot longer than a tank period. I don't even see it as a tank period. I see it as a smart business strategy. Doing what you need to do for sustained success. Some teams can quickly reload ala the Yankees the past few years. Some need to strip it all down and build it back up. How you go about it depends mostly on where you are inherently allowed to compete within the system.

I used to be adamant against the DH in the NL. I looked forward to Milwaukee switching leagues. The game has changed and the amount of "benefit" I see with the rule is just not there. The amount of possible negative repercussions with Pitchers hitting and running bases is possibly catastrophic. The viewing pleasure of watching most pitchers hit is nearly zero if not negative. Bring it on and bring it fast so we can even it out and adjust.

I like this idea, let the Brewers help you make a point. Everyone come to the Brewers for one year deals to ensure we don't lose draft pick compensation. Put some nice bonuses in there for performance/winning the world series and then hit the market next year. Or if you don't want to get lost in the shuffle with Harper/Machado/Kershaw lets do 2 year deals and then you hit market AFTER the salaries get reset to new highs. While it's tongue in cheek, that would be an awesome move by the players to "collude" and try to put together a winner in a small market club to make a point.

Nice summary Reilly. Pretty much sums up all the reasons why things have converged. Perhaps that is what we should call this offseason...convergence vice collusion. After next offseason the union will be unable to make these claims due to the record number of contracts being signed every week. Hard to claim collusion once that happens. Maybe then they'll claim the owners are colluding to drive prices UP? What I would like to see is better pay for minor leaguers. It's almost criminal that these players have to skim by the way they do on a daily basis during the season with many working second jobs during the off season to save up for the next season. Spread the wealth a bit to help the game at all levels. It's fairly obvious the agents and players are negotiating right now through the media and hoping to scare the owners/teams into protecting their position by giving in to this years class. I don't see that happening. Once Darvish is off the market in the next few days you should see Cobb/Lynn go quickly enough as the runner up gets the next arm and so on. I would not bet against Arrieta trying to wait out the market and see who caves or gets a need due to injury in spring training/season. The longer he waits into the season, the less flexibility that teams have to add the size of his contract. Perhaps he does wait until midseason and joins a contender at half cost and a fresh arm. Would take some guts to do that as a player/agent.

We'll see how that plays out in years 4 and 5 of Cains contract. There is a pretty good chance we have that bloated contract on the books when we need to have the money for another player at that time, but will be strapped. I might be wrong, but so could everyone else. I think the Brewers will be perfectly fine in years 4 and 5. I anticipate significant cash flow after three straight World Series titles.

Wow...first glance I was shocked by the package expecting a lottery ticket back. I'm fine with losing Brinson and Diaz/Harrison are high risk prospects with big ceilings. I also liked the fact we did not give up our top arms. I love this trade and think the Brewers did very well. The timing of it is hopefully a positive sign to entice those remaining pitchers to see the Brewers are serious about investing in a winning team and want to be a part of it. I fully expect Santana to be traded for arms and probably some lower level prospect capital/lottery tickets.

Cell service isn't really an issue in 99% of the US. All carriers have a strong network and partnerships to cover most gaps. There are dead zones to worry about, but again that is small. I had Cingular/AT&T for years and did not notice any issues and that included significant travel around the US during my military service. I switched to Verizon because that was what my wife's family runs through. I have considered T-Mobile a few times, but with only 2 lines at the moment there is not enough difference to change providers. I like how aggressive T-Mobile has been in increasing their coverage and reliability while providing one set rate per month that includes all fees. If I was starting out fresh, that would be my first stop. While I have not had many issues with Verizon, the customer service has been subpar during those few times when I needed assistance. I have also looked into prepaid, but I require reliability too much for work and personal life.

I really enjoyed the movie and have very few, nitpicky things that I would even bring up. I thought the amount of comedy and banter was well done. The middle section with Finn/Rose was very preachy. Environmental activism, political message on making money from war and also a piece on the Rebellion not being completely noble in needing to buy from the arms dealers to fight. The lightspeed transport into Snoke's ship was amazing. Twists and turns and not just a straight forward story. Very well done.

I like where your head is at Reilly. Love, Actually is one of my faves and a must watch every December. Rudolph is probably my favorite old school Christmas movie. Elf, Christmas Vacation and original Grinch are all great. I respect Santa Claus is coming to Town too.

A 16 team playoff is a terrible idea in college football. This would add 2 extra games to the current system for each finalist and semi finalist compared to the current CFP. First off, these are student athletes that have to take into account exams and going to school with workouts and travel. The vast majority of these players are not professional athletes or will make it to the next level. The bowl system works because it's a great one-time event. When Wisconsin goes to the Rose Bowl, the stadium is flush with red because fans make it a holiday and an event. College students can head to the game and make a memory. Adding 3 extra trips in one year is very excessive and I doubt you would get the numbers that these events would like. Especially if the championship game is when the next semester starts. Second, you now extend the playoffs into the third week of January, which is direct competition against the NFL playoffs. Football overload doesn't help either party in the ratings. Third, you are really watering down the playoffs at that level. The college football regular season is great because the games matter. I love the superconference idea because you build your tournament into the regular season with winning your division, conference and then 4 team playoff. It doesn't add any extra games than what we have now. "Honestly, I cannot wrap my head around 100+ programs just playing games, to play them. In hopes of getting that 6th win and into one more meaningless game." And that's your problem. Most schools understand they aren't competing for national titles because of a multitude of factors to include recruiting, facilities, coaching talent (salaries), alumni support, etc. And you know what matters to these schools? Rivalry games. Conference Championships. Bowl Games. Everything you think is pointless is exactly what matters.

I agree it doesn't add too much value in terms of new markets, but it adds another AAU college that can be a natural rival to Iowa and Nebraska in the West. Syracuse is an interesting option in NY. Notre Dame makes a lot of sense for a nationwide brand improvement and quality add, but ND does not seem to want any part of it. Lets go all in and get Texas and Texas A&M for football and as AAU. Colorado? Vanderbilt? Ignore AAU and move further East with Connecticut and Boston College?

"I have been a proponent of this, however, there are two issues. 1) Too many "power" conference teams to go into 4 sixteen team conferences evenly. Some Big 12 schools would get kicked to mid majors. 2) mid majors are completely shut out of all possibility of playing in the playoff. Even if they are all but shut out now, there is always a chance for a Utah or Boise to make it." Can't make an omelete without cracking a few eggs. I'm not as worried about Mid Majors as they are essentially shut out anyways. I would be worried about lowering the brand of each conference by spreading it out over 8 conferences. By my count the ACC/Big 10/SEC each need 2 teams and the Pac 12 need 4. The Big 12 has 10 teams...plus a Notre Dame team that will not be shut out. So that leaves one team outside looking in if you do a straight swap. There is more to it than just football with other sports and academics sometimes sprinkled in. Politics also plays a part. Oklahoma and Okie State are tied together as are Kansas and Kansas State. ACC - need 2 Notre Dame - Atlantic Division UCF - Coastal Division Big 10 - need 2 Iowa State - West West Virginia - East SEC - need 2 Texas - West Houston - West (Arkansas moves into the SEC East) PAC 12 - need 4 Oklahoma - South OK St - South Kansas - South Kansas St - South (Colorado and Utah move to North) Left out, Texas Tech and Baylor due to randomly throwing in Houston and UCF Texas Tech, Baylor and Army into the AAC to give that conference 14 teams..Tech/Baylor in the West, Army in the East. That wasn't so hard. Where it gets hard is if conferences have motives such as new markets or AAU membership. Then the Big Ten could still look at Iowa State (AAU) or try to poach someone like Syracuse, Texas, Missouri, Pitt for AAU credentials.

The debate will always be there until we see 4 super conferences....16 teams each....two 8-team divisions...4 conference champions battle for the title. Conference matchups in the semifinals rotate each year: Year 1 Big Ten vs SEC and Pac-10 vs ACC, Year 2, ACC vs Big Ten and SEC vs PAC-10, etc. Big 12 splits to fill out Pac 10/Big 10 and Notre Dame finds a home in the ACC although it should be in Big 10.

Basically what I gathered is that they circumvented the system by giving a few players a smaller bonus than they normally would have received and in turn gave other, non bonus pool international free agents ( who had the same agent as these under bonus players) significantly higher deals which would then be funneled to the under slot guys. The total value of these deals would have placed Atlanta over their pool by more than 5% which would have resulted in loss of a pick and no international free agents greater than $300k for a few years. Hence why they lost so many. The players that they signed for more than $300k during the period they would have normally been restricted are now free agents again and get to keep their original bonuses.

The camping out for voucher turn in and saving spots in line were ridiculous when I was there. I lived right across from the Kohl Center and it was not pleasant to watch, or hear, or see. We just turned ours in the day of the game. Didn't really gain anything extra by waiting in line all night in the freezing cold. Sad to think what the student section has become. Fix it and fix it fast...both sides.