BigbadB

:w00t: I'm on the board with HBP!

Goodbye Tomas, we hardly knew you. We wish you well.

Nope. Didn't need it. Diminishing marginal utility really doesn't relate to this discussion. Let's say Zambrano has been informed by his agent that he could get $20m a year on his next contract with a team like the Yankees or Red Sox, and the Cubs are only offering 16m. Is Zambrano giving anything up to pitch for some other team? No. His job title and responsibilities would be pretty much the same no matter what team signs him, just wearing a different colored uniform in different surroundings. Not every team is going to offer up the same price for his services. So, it's up to Zambrano and his agent and any other significant person in his life that he trusts major decisions with to decide what amount of money will satisfy his needs and wants. It would be foolish on his part to accept a lot less money to stay in Chicago (a big market team that has proven it will pay big market dollars (Aram/Soriano/Sosa) to it's stars) than what other big market teams will be willing to give him on the free agent market. Besides that, Zambrano has been given one opportunity to see the playoffs in his career. While the fans in Chicago have always been great to the players, other organizations that consistently make the playoffs might be quite enticing to Zambrano. You take what you can get when you can get it for as long as you can get it. It's pretty simple. It makes me mad that I have to pay ridiculous prices to see a baseball game because of how much money these guys make, but you can't blame them for trying to get as much as they can from the owners of these baseball teams. It's not the baseball player's fault that contracts spiraled completely out of control.

I am to. I did purchase MLB.TV already, but I get 5 days of free trial. If no deal is done within those 5 days, I'll just go ahead and allow MLB to charge my credit card for computer baseball.

Thanks for this update. Let us know when you hear something new.

Yeah, who is going to want to trade for that attitude? A promising career just took a turn for the worse.

13-17 per hour is poverty level? Wow, I'm behind the times. I never realized things have gotten that bad. Not really surprising under George Bush's watch, really. Whether you like the example or not, most people will take the job that pays more money. It's a fact of life. And to add to that, most people will find a way to pay less for the same services. And it's a bit of a stretch to say that neither he or his children will ever have to work again. You would hope he would manage his money well enough to never have to work again. MC Hammer didn't manage his money very well. Kareem Abdul Jabbar let someone else manage his money and he was broke right after he retired. Mike Tyson? Broke. How much money has Barry Bonds forked out to make his head as big as it is? :D

I think some of you are going to regret picking Jose Guillen.

Tell that to all the boxers that are walking the streets. Tell that to Kareem Abdul Jabbar who was broke when his career ended. A guy's arm could fall off tomorrow and his career will be over. You get what you can get when you can get it. Period. I suppose these guys could live off the interest of their 4-5 million, but wouldn't they be giving up a significant portion of the lifestyle they had been living while they were still playing the game? Why give that up if you could live off the interest of even more than 4-5 million? To ask the question another way....... You're currently the manager of the McDonald's down the street. You make $13.00 an hour and get good benefits. You've been with McDonald's for 8 years now, and you're pretty pleased with how things have worked out for you. Are you so loyal to them that you would turn down $17.00 an hour to be the manager at Burger King with the same benefits? Is McDonald's treating you so well that you'd be willing to pass over $8,320 of increased annual income to keep grilling burgers? Do you like that "hometown discount"? To me, I think that my current employer is raking me over the coals and tomorrow I'll be broiling burgers instead of grilling them. Baseball isn't a job you can hold onto until you are age 65. Most players are out of the game before they reach 35. Some of these guys never got an education to speak of, and they will need to learn how to manage their money fast, or it will be gone as quickly as it came. And there is NO job that will pay them anywhere close to what they are getting now, so you get what you can get while you can. If you were in Zambrano's shoes, you'd be asking for as much as you could squeeze out of the Cubs. And you aren't just negotiating by yourself. You have your agent, your family members and the players union all making sure you take what you have coming.

Lou makes a statement in game 1 of the season to the fans, the team, the opposing team and the umpires that the Cubs mean business this year by getting kicked out of the game during the exchange of line up cards at home plate. :D The Cubs go on to win the game 8-0 on a 5 hit shutout.

Well stated. MLB is to blame for this, and while I doubt it comes back to bite them in the butt, I'll hold out hope. Meanwhile, they'll still be getting my money. And actually probably more of it than when I ordered MLB EI through my cable carrier.

Yeah, I've been waiting and holding out hope as well. But, sometime this weekend, I want to be up and running with MLB.TV for the start of the season.

Darkhouse is what you get when you spend the money you have set aside to pay your power bill on something else.

Depends on who your carrier is, I suppose. Cox (my cable company) is offering to pay 100% of my tab for MLB.TV. I prefer that over switching carriers. It sounds like the cable companies were in a no-win situation. DirecTV (whether you like their dealings with MLB or not) offered up a big package for EXCLUSIVE rights to MLB EI. While MLB did give the cable companies an opportunity to match what DirecTV was offering, as soon as they did, DirecTV would have turned around and pulled their offer off the table, since their exclusivity was no longer true. I haven't been following this as closely as I probably could have, but from what I gather, MLB is the only one who wins with all of this. Option A: DirecTV has exclusive rights to MLB EI Cable has nothing MLB gets basically the same amount of money from DirecTV that they received last year from everyone combined, and MLB.TV subscriptions increase dramatically. Option B: Cable matches DirecTV's proposal DirecTV reconstructs their deal because the exclusivity offer is no longer on the table, virtually changing nothing except a bigger profit for MLB (cable offer being much higher than previous year), though not nearly as much as MLB.TV subscription won't dramatically increase. Option C: DirecTV has exclusivity Cable refuses to pay the ridiculous matching price for MLB EI, but offers to pay 100% to their cable subscribers if they would like to purchase MLB.TV. Option C isn't ideal, but it attempts to keep their customers from switching to DirecTV. No matter how you slice it, all of these options help MLB profit big time. Preventing DirecTV from profiting is at least attempting to keep the competition (DirecTV) from profiting on the exclusivity deal. I'm going to go with MLB.TV. I can't place blame on my cable carrier for being in a no-win situation. And I appreciate that they value me enough as a customer to want to help me continue getting baseball games somehow. They didn't have to offer up anything at all. The amount of subscribers for out of market baseball games really isn't all that overwhelming that they would lose all that many customers to DirecTV if they did nothing. A high percentage of those people would have gone MLB.TV instead of switching carriers anyway. I still would have gone MLB.TV if they weren't offering to pay for it. In a perfect world, fans from everywhere could get out of market games on any cable or satellite system or via MLB.TV. We all know this world ain't even close to being perfect, so I guess Option C isn't the worst possible outcome.

I can see what inspired you to become such a huge fan. Those were good times. :roll: :D

Tampa? Who is starting for them besides Kazmir? Offensively, they look pretty solid. Pitching will once again be their weakness. It's amazing to me that they ignore that problem year after year. I thought for sure they'd peddle some offense this offseason for some pitching. They're going to lose a lot of games 14-13.

I've never understood why players are expected to give discounts to the team that they play for. I think it's great if a player took a huge discount if it meant enough in savings to add another great player, which in turn would increase the chances of the team winning, but there aren't many unselfish players willing to do something like that. And the reason is, some of these guys won't have anything to fall back on once their baseball careers are over, so make as much as you can while you still can.

The rumor is that the Padres are looking at Oscar Robles to take Walker's place on the roster. Is Oscar Robles better than Walker? If not, then they weren't taking the best 25 players to Petco next week.

I'm predicting 90+

Now it's definitely sounding more like NCAA :thumright:

FYI- Roberto Novoa IS available. :wink:

Haha!

The problem with your theory is that it has no more likelihood of being true than my theory. Players go through slumps all the time. The best players in the league go through slumps. You have no idea what causes those slumps. Focus, stance, timing, follow through, etc......, but it happens to the best of them. It's all guesswork, but his slump started on Dusty's watch and ended on Dusty's watch. I'm sure he slumped at other times under someone else's watch. For all we know, Derrek Lee saw what was wrong with Murton's swing and helped him correct it. I have yet to hear from Murton himself how his slump was busted. Until I hear it from him, we are all just blindly speculating. Now, if you have proof that Murton's GB ratio was fixed by Dusty and the Clowns, feel free to share. Until then, no love for Dusty from me. :D

yes. you cannot exceed roster limits though - ie if you have an extra reserve, you have to have an SP spot empty. I think I follow that. Although it really doesn't matter at this time, since I only have 5 (healthy) starters. :D

Spending big money on a closer is not a great plan. Who were the top saves guys only 5 years ago? It's the biggest revolving door in baseball. There just aren't very many Mariano Rivera's, or Trevor Hoffman's, or Lee Smith's. If you are lucky enough to find one of those, you're luckier than most. In 2002 and the top 10 leaders in saves, only Eric Gagne is a closer today. Guardado would make a 2nd guy, but who knows if he'll ever make it back to being a closer. And Gagne's issues are well documented. Only a small handful of closers are still closing. Wagner, Rivera, Hoffman, Todd Jones, Isringhausen and maybe another guy or two I'm forgetting. In 2003, only 3 or 4 of the top 10 are still closing. I put "4" in there because Jorge Julio might be a closer this year. You want a good closer? Find a guy in your own system that's dirt cheap and offers up at least 2 plus pitches with good control, but is pretty much out of the picture as far as a rotation spot is concerned. Mike Wuertz comes to mind. Kerry Wood would have been a possible option. I'm willing to wait it out and see how Dempster performs this year. I think he might surprise a few people.