Which the owners, Rogers Communications, could easily do.
Rogers is the AT&T of Canada.
The Blue Jays are chump change to them.
They're just cheap.
They spend the money on the Leafs, because the Leafs are a guaranteed cash cow.
With the Jays they go on the cheap.
Hockey contracts are more manageable and a bunch of the players are Canadian. Baseball is guaranteed money, and once you make those concessions agents get wise to that. California teams are having a similar issue.
Yup. Bryce Harper would have been a Giant but they would have had to give hime $30 million more than the Phillies did to get the same money at the end of the day.
Trout and Machado's contracts act as an exception to this rule, but then again, they didn't have another team in a different state competing for them
Machado did, I dont think it was 300. I heard 250-270 range. Trout was given almost half a billion dollars NOT to test the free agent market. They made him a deal he couldn't refuse.
Not sure about that Giant deal, sure the Giants were serious but I think Harper was set on Philly and the agent just wanted to bring multiple offers and use those offers as bargaining chips. Boras is infamous for that.
I only care about the Stanley Cup. Otherwise pro sports is shit.
The Shift has ruined MLB, it's like the Trap Era in hockey.
I hate the NHL too, I'm just addicted to it like cigarettes, whereas baseball I am not.
Comparing the shift to the neutral zone trap is overblown. Statistically the shift makes about a 5-8%. The name of the game is too hit them where they ain't. You are talking about more strikeouts from taking more pitches. Fretting over launch angles and not making contact, and babying pitchers, things like that are having more of an effect than the shift.
You sound like dirty dick with the NFL. I am fine with MLB, some of the pace of play rules piss me off. But overall they know how to service the diehard fans.
What do you think of the Opener situation teams like Tampa bay are doing?
In today's era of pitch count, I kinda like it.
The only thing I'm really opposed to is the DH in the NL. I'm the kind of person who wants the DH in the AL scrapped as well.
I like the DH as it stands. One league yes the other not. As for the opener, at first glance, I fucking hate it, but in comparison to the closer and the Save stat, it makes much more sense. Theoretically, the closer was supposed to be your best reliever with the best short term stuff, but why? It prioritizes the last 3 outs, when all outs are equally important, what you should focus on is best hitters, the opener does that. Best short term pitcher facing the best hitters in the lineup. One of the downsides is the investment, after 1 or 2 innings you used one of your best bullpen options your starter or long reliever in this instance has to go 5 or 6 innings on a consistent basis. Colorado was running an interest experiment that I think could work. Since we have rosters with 12 or 13 pitchers why not have 8 starters. It's a regular 4 man rotation with just two starters going about 4 or 5 innings or 12 outs each.
The opener makes great sense.
The 1st inning is the highest scoring inning in baseball, I think.
Plus the pitcher knows exactly who they will be facing days in advance.
The only issue is whether or not your bullpen could support it.
The opener makes great sense.
The 1st inning is the highest scoring inning in baseball, I think.
Plus the pitcher knows exactly who they will be facing days in advance.
The only issue is whether or not your bullpen could support it.
Beginning in 2020, the roster size from Opening Day through Aug. 31 (and during the postseason) will increase from 25 to 26,
Next year, teams get an additional player.
I think the league will move to in practice prevent the opener. The league is not interested in anything that would lower scoring.
It's important not to overstate these things, the difference between an opener and closer is minuscule. Winning teams are still going to hold on thier best relievers for closers. There used to be a limited market for closers, that market can now expand. I dont think the league can or will do anything to stop that.
The league is only interested in making money for the owners and the league office. The players union is only interested in making money for the players. They only care about scoring if it affects their cash flow.
I hate the idea of increasing the roster size. That will only give us more specialists that come into a game for a few pitches or a single at bat every couple of days. If they are worried about players workload they should reduce the season to 144 games. That will never happen because it means less income for the league. The players union loves the expanded rosters because it means more jobs for the players.
The league is only interested in making money for the owners and the league office. The players union is only interested in making money for the players. They only care about scoring if it affects their cash flow.
I hate the idea of increasing the roster size. That will only give us more specialists that come into a game for a few pitches or a single at bat every couple of days. If they are worried about players workload they should reduce the season to 144 games. That will never happen because it means less income for the league. The players union loves the expanded rosters because it means more jobs for the players.
This expanded roster is actually a compromise. 25 to 26 man rosters for full season is a big compromise compared to what we have now. Now we have 25 for 5 months and rosters expand to 40 in September, that is when bullpens ballooned. Plus teams were stockpiling pitchers in AA and AAA and using the DL to ship pitchers up and down. Putting a spot starter on the 10 day DL, after his start, so you can open up a roster spot and put him back on the roster when he can spot start again. They are going to try to prevent that by upping the minimum days on the DL.
