The 2018 Major Leage Baseball Thread

[The Man]

A really good MLB player, I have no doubt.

The next Babe Ruth, come on please dont make me laugh

The only possible comparison I can see to Babe Ruth is that Ruth was a great pitcher and a great hitter. But that’s where it ends. No way Ohtani will be anything close to Ruth as a pitcher or a hitter.

 

[Port & Starboard]

I can't wait to see how many home runs the Yankees hit this year as a team.

The Stanton deal was huge!

My Red Sox better get used to being in 2nd place for the next few years. They will be like lawn chairs after labor day.

 

[The Man]

I can't wait to see how many home runs the Yankees hit this year as a team.

The Stanton deal was huge!

My Red Sox better get used to being in 2nd place for the next few years. They will be like lawn chairs after labor day.

I don’t think one more big power bat in the lineup will make much of a difference. Pitching wins championships. That money would be much better spent on a top pitcher.

 

[Desert Storm]

My Red Sox better get used to being in 2nd place for the next few years. They will be like lawn chairs after labor day

Guess who's coming in 3rd.........no wait, make that 4th.........uhm perhaps 5th

Luxury tax be damned!!!

 

[Desert Storm]

I can't wait to see how many home runs the Yankees hit this year as a team.

The Stanton deal was huge!

I hate you rich Yankee bastards!!


*throws computer keyboard across the room*

 

[Tigerace117]

I can't wait to see how many home runs the Yankees hit this year as a team.

The Stanton deal was huge!

My Red Sox better get used to being in 2nd place for the next few years. They will be like lawn chairs after labor day.

Is it too early to start the "Jeter was a double agent" conspiracy theories? :mrgreen:

 

[The Man]

Is it too early to start the "Jeter was a double agent" conspiracy theories? :mrgreen:

Isn’t Jeter a non-controlling minority owner? If so, I don’t think he’s the one who made this deal.

 

[Tigerace117]

Isn’t Jeter a non-controlling minority owner? If so, I don’t think he’s the one who made this deal.

He has a 4 percent share in ownership overall, but apparently he is in charge of baseball and business operations.

 

[The Man]

He has a 4 percent share in ownership overall, but apparently he is in charge of baseball and business operations.

They leave their business decisions up to a 4% shareholder? I’m wondering why they would do that?

 

[Tigerace117]

They leave their business decisions up to a 4% shareholder? I’m wondering why they would do that?

Because Jeter is generally popular and played baseball for lots of years. In essence, he's a human shield for the fact that they plan on gutting the team yet again after promising they wouldn't gut the team

 

[Port & Starboard]

I don’t think one more big power bat in the lineup will make much of a difference. Pitching wins championships. That money would be much better spent on a top pitcher.

The Red Sox have good enough pitching to go all the way.

Also......there were only 3 pitching dominant games in the WS.

 

[The Man]

Because Jeter is generally popular and played baseball for lots of years. In essence, he's a human shield for the fact that they plan on gutting the team yet again after promising they wouldn't gut the team

I’m not following that business thought. New owners buy the team, they unload the Stanton contract while Stanton is one of their biggest draws, and pin it on Jeter. How does this help them business wise, and why would they buy a team to do that?

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I’m not following that business thought. New owners buy the team, they unload the Stanton contract while Stanton is one of their biggest draws, and pin it on Jeter. How does this help them business wise, and why would they buy a team to do that?

Marlins have had the lowest attendance 11 out of the last 12 years in baseball.. Even with Stanton, they were NOT drawing fans. I have no idea why anyone would even buy that team. Unless of course there's a chance they're going to move.

As for trading for Stanton. It's obviously a big move for the Yankees, but I am surprised that even they would take that awful contract. They've been burnt in the past with these terrible long contracts. They need pitching more than another bat. I can see a lot of HR's for the Yanks, but I can see long run scoring droughts too because they now have quite a few players in their line-up that strikeout a TON.

Also this is one of the major problems with baseball nowadays. In the LONG run it is ONLY the big market, rich teams that can afford these big contracts. 13 year contract? Stanton's 28 YO's old? And he's hurt often. In his 8 year career he's played over 140 games only 3 times. Yanks will get 5-6 great years from him, the other 7 years or so he'll hit 20 HR's and bat .230. Small market teams can't afford to pay big money for an average performance. Players like Stanton can only go to 7-8 teams in the whole league. That's not good for the sport.

 

[Bucky]

I don’t think one more big power bat in the lineup will make much of a difference. Pitching wins championships. That money would be much better spent on a top pitcher.

No top pitcher is available in free agency.

Only pitcher that interests me is Noah Syndergaard, and the Yankees would have to probably trade Gary Sanchez. I might consider that trade.

 

[The Man]

No top pitcher is available in free agency.

Only pitcher that interests me is Noah Syndergaard, and the Yankees would have to probably trade Gary Sanchez. I might consider that trade.

Giancarlo Stanton wasn’t available in free agency either. [emoji6]

I would go Bumgarner. Might be able to trade for him at a discount right now, and the dude can hit.

 

[The Man]

Marlins have had the lowest attendance 11 out of the last 12 years in baseball.. Even with Stanton, they were NOT drawing fans. I have no idea why anyone would even buy that team. Unless of course there's a chance they're going to move.

As for trading for Stanton. It's obviously a big move for the Yankees, but I am surprised that even they would take that awful contract. They've been burnt in the past with these terrible long contracts. They need pitching more than another bat. I can see a lot of HR's for the Yanks, but I can see long run scoring droughts too because they now have quite a few players in their line-up that strikeout a TON.

Also this is one of the major problems with baseball nowadays. In the LONG run it is ONLY the big market, rich teams that can afford these big contracts. 13 year contract? Stanton's 28 YO's old? And he's hurt often. In his 8 year career he's played over 140 games only 3 times. Yanks will get 5-6 great years from him, the other 7 years or so he'll hit 20 HR's and bat .230. Small market teams can't afford to pay big money for an average performance. Players like Stanton can only go to 7-8 teams in the whole league. That's not good for the sport.

I don’t mind the big market teams paying out stupid contracts if they want to, and I don’t think it really hurts the game. Plenty of smaller market teams have won the World Series in this millennium. They do it through smart acquisitions, great coaching/managing, and creativity, the big market teams do it, or attempt to do it by money, and it doesn’t always work, in fact, outside of the Yankees of the 90s, it rarely works.

 

[Jack Hays]

IMHO the Yankees would have done better to pass on Stanton and wait for Harper in 2018. He's younger and hits LH.

 

[The Man]

IMHO the Yankees would have done better to pass on Stanton and wait for Harper in 2018. He's younger and hits LH.

I would agree with that. I think there is a lot more up side to Harper than there is to Stanton. Harper is a multi-dimensional player. Stanton is a player who hits the ball really far when he hits it.

 

[Jack Hays]

I would agree with that. I think there is a lot more up side to Harper than there is to Stanton. Harper is a multi-dimensional player. Stanton is a player who hits the ball really far when he hits it.

Of course the risk with Harper is he might stay in Washington. Nats owners have deep pockets and have shown they will spend big.

 

[The Man]

Of course the risk with Harper is he might stay in Washington. Nats owners have deep pockets and have shown they will spend big.

That’s possible, but with that Scherzer contract on the books for a long time yet, not sure.

 

[Jack Hays]

That’s possible, but with that Scherzer contract on the books for a long time yet, not sure.

They did the Strasburg extension with Scherzer already on the books. Principal owner is 92 YOA and wants a World Series.

 

[The Man]

They did the Strasburg extension with Scherzer already on the books. Principal owner is 92 YOA and wants a World Series.

Well the Orioles’ owner Peter Angelos is pretty old too. I wish he would get some of that “I don’t give a ****, lets go all in and win it!” attitude as well! Lol

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I don’t mind the big market teams paying out stupid contracts if they want to, and I don’t think it really hurts the game. Plenty of smaller market teams have won the World Series in this millennium. They do it through smart acquisitions, great coaching/managing, and creativity, the big market teams do it, or attempt to do it by money, and it doesn’t always work, in fact, outside of the Yankees of the 90s, it rarely works.

When I said it's not good for the game, I'm not just talking about winning and losing. If you are a fan of a small market team, and you know your team will never be able to hold onto a big time name player, or go out and trade for/buy one. It hurts the game. The 'best' in the game seldom end up signing with or staying with the smaller market teams. The TB Rays and KC Royals were good for 3-4 years but then have to sell and take years and years to re-build again. That's not good for the game.

The baseball versions of Aaron Rodgers in GB and Peyton Manning in Indy never happens in baseball.

 

[Threegoofs]

When I said it's not good for the game, I'm not just talking about winning and losing. If you are a fan of a small market team, and you know your team will never be able to hold onto a big time name player, or go out and trade for/buy one. It hurts the game. The 'best' in the game seldom end up signing with or staying with the smaller market teams. The TB Rays and KC Royals were good for 3-4 years but then have to sell and take years and years to re-build again. That's not good for the game.

The baseball versions of Aaron Rodgers in GB and Peyton Manning in Indy never happens in baseball.

Agree.

It really hurts baseball in the long run.

They need to introduce socialism- like the other major sports.

 

[The Man]

When I said it's not good for the game, I'm not just talking about winning and losing. If you are a fan of a small market team, and you know your team will never be able to hold onto a big time name player, or go out and trade for/buy one. It hurts the game. The 'best' in the game seldom end up signing with or staying with the smaller market teams. The TB Rays and KC Royals were good for 3-4 years but then have to sell and take years and years to re-build again. That's not good for the game.

The baseball versions of Aaron Rodgers in GB and Peyton Manning in Indy never happens in baseball.

That doesn’t bother me with baseball though. I am a fan of a smaller market team, and I like that they don’t sign their stars to ridiculous contracts. I like the turnover.

Well, they did sign Chris Davis to a stupid contract, and I hate that, but nowhere in the realm of the Stanton contract.