Geech

I kind of like the screaming indian logo, but I'm probably culturally insensitive.

This. Vitters is a poor defensive 3B who has never demonstrated the offensive ability to be acceptable lower down on the positional spectrum. Vitters is much closer to the bigs than Johnson, but in Josh's case that really just means that he's just closer to being lousy at the big league level.

I don't think the post was hostile because you tried to make an argument about aging curves, I think there was hostility because you assumed your arguments were true, with basically no evidence, in the service of your larger point about a player's value. If you had started a completely separate topic about player aging curves, and raised questions about them in a matter that was unrelated to the value of Dominic Brown, I think it's fair to say that you would not have provoked such a response.

I thought the pies got old really quickly, honestly.

I just hope he doesn't take playing time away from Darwin Barney.

Clown Kenney ruins everything. We could have had Steve Stone back, the smartest analyst in baseball, but Kenney had to intercede for his crony Deshaies.

I believe I remember this as well. Was it on fangraphs? I think I found it, but it's not as in-depth as I had hoped: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/does_speed_age_better/

Good deal.

How much did the Dodgers sell for? If the television rights are worth that much money, why didn't Fox Sports just buy the team outright? Didn't NewsCorp own the team before the McCourts? I don't know and I'm honestly not sure what your point is.

I'm sorry, but that's silly. Sports team purchases are almost always financed with debt. There's absolutely no reason to believe that Fox Sports, or anyone for that matter, would need to check under couch cushions to scrape together 2 billion on day one. I think we're still missing the point, here. I found a present value calculator online that allows you to calculate the present value of an annuity. Essentially, this calculation allows you determine the value today of a group of future payments given a specific rate of return. Now the actual present value of the payments will vary depending on the details of the payments, but even without those it's a very informative exercise. What I found is that a yearly payment of 270 million dollars (this seems to be a common midpoint in reports I have seen), at an 8% rate of return (I pulled this out of my ass, but it's pretty healthy), for 25 years is worth 2.8 billion dollars. No matter how you look at it, Fox Sports just paid more than the cost of the franchise for the rights to broadcast some of the team's games. I don't understand how you can really think that's business as usual. It's completely bizarre. If you're curious to know more, here's a brief definition and explanation of the present value concept: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/present-value-annuity.asp#axzz2DfR9MQrF

They just paid more than six billion dollars for the television rights to a team that just sold for two billion dollars. They could have paid the two billion, and gotten the television rights along with the rest of the revenue from the Dodgers. Instead, they decided to pay a lot more to get less. That makes no sense to me. And it's not like they needed to know how to run the team, either. Every team has presidents and GMs and directors who make the actual baseball decisions. Owners don't need to be active, and typically are not. I'm not really advocating that Fox Sports should have purchased the team. I'm just stunned at the apparent disparity between the sale price of the team and the value of the product. It makes no god damned sense to me.

Are you responding to me? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

How much did the Dodgers sell for? If the television rights are worth that much money, why didn't Fox Sports just buy the team outright? Maybe they didn't want to get into the owning/running an MLB team business and wanted to stay with what they know in the broadcasting business? But it made sense to pay three times as much for a piece of the business instead? When does that start making sense? Four billion dollars in savings, even spread out over 25 years, can cushion A LOT of growing pains. This is madness. At the risk of being trite, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. These numbers just make no god damned sense. How did every bidder for the Dodgers so horribly undervalue the franchise like that?

How much did the Dodgers sell for? If the television rights are worth that much money, why didn't Fox Sports just buy the team outright?

Ban Kyle for trolling, please.

I carry my phone in my pants pocket, but I have been thinking about getting a belt holster. My phone has pocket dialed 911 on two separate occasions.

It really does seem like Kyle.

If you had actually made this point from the beginning, this thread would have gone much better for you. By the way, I basically agree with the argument you have described in this post.

Considering? Newsflash: at this point not believing that some god or gods are real and favor the Cardinals makes you a lunatic.

Jesus, I'm sick of the Cardinals. Postseason baseball is ceasing to be any fun for me.

Wow, what's that all about?

I care more about Rizzo having a good game than I would about a Cubs victory.

I think it actually comes across as even more awkward and forced than I remember. Perhaps I just can't divorce from the context of Meph's utter lunacy as well as some of you, though.

I'm pretty sure Kyle actually "surrendered" on the Brett Jackson issue a few weeks ago when Brett was still in the minors. I guess he changed his mind back since then, however.

How the hell does Baltimore have so many wins despite by outscored by their opponents by 40 runs?