EVIL~! alkeiper

If Leiter truly cares about the Mets, he'll take the Marlins' offer.

Actually they played quite a few games around the Washington area as well.

So did the Yankees actually do something? Or is this more pointless bitching?

We have a topic regarding this already.

They're still in the National League East. The original Washington Senators were officially known as the Nationals for much of their original run, but the fans never bought that. I can live with the logo. I believe MLB.com is running the press conference live at noon.

I don't have anything close-worthy to go on, but to all those who brain cells, I suggest you bail while you still can.

Obviously in a college football thread a top team will merit its fair share of discussion. The point is that it spirals out of control.

I've seen enough of this. Damaramu, if you get this upset over your team, step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. The OU debates dominate these discussions, and it is unfair for the fans of other college football teams. And for the rest of you, I would ask that you not bait this discussion. Please keep discussion of the merits of OU in the OaO thread. Thank you.

Obviously under the radar, but my local state university (East Stroudsburg) won their division II playoff today against Edinsburg, advancing to the Regional Finals.

Must we really have this discussion again?

The Benson signing appears official. $22.5 Million over three years for a pitcher who hasn't cracked the league average since before Tommy John surgery. Meanwhile, the Cubs signed Glendon Rusch for two years, $4 Million.

I think giving so much guaranteed money to pitchers straight out of college is a bad investment. Particularly since you can get an average pitcher for the same price.

A few mod notes here. First off, racist labels are not acceptable on the board. Please chose words more carefully in the future. Second, when you guys are quoting posts, please do not include animated gifs. When the same animated image is repeated 2-3 times on a page, it slows loading time, particularly for 56k members.

Such a shame. This version of cpac seemed twice as intelligent as the last one. Perhaps in generations, a cpac will emerge fully capable of translating thoughts into coherant sentences.

I came across an interesting article at the Hardball Times, comparing pitchers with the league average in terms of strikeouts and walks. It is an interesting historical read. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...azzy-and-pedro/

On another note, quite a few minor league signings are coming down the pike. The Oakland Athletics finally realized their dream of signing Jack Cust.

I got worried today thinking to myself what a dumbass we had for a GM, and that would handcuff the Phillies. Then I remembered we play in a division with Jim Bowden and Omar Minaya, and I smiled. I'm reversing opinions on the Guzman/Castilla signings. I don't like the general direction of this franchise at all. Bowden seems good at adding names, but he's clueless at adding talent. Here are the OPS+ figures from Guillen and Rivera last season... Guillen 119 Rivera 118 On top of that, Guillen is quickly gaining a bad reputation. And for that, Bowden not only traded Rivera, but he traded a player who could hit every bit as well (if not better) than Christian Guzman. Here's my favorite Bowden quote... I have a feeling a certain general manager is going to be sadly mistaken. Perhaps if he studied sabermetrics instead of blindly bashing them, he would find that players reach their peak around age 27. Guillen could maintain his current level of production, but he is unlikely to get any better. And his poor BB/K ratio would indicate a step in the opposite direction is more likely. But no. Bowden will wonder why his star outfielder couldn't reach 100 RBIs despite having OBP wunderkinds Christian Guzman, Vinny Castilla, and Endy Chavez in the lineup. And when the Expos lose 90 games again, he'll blame it on the lack of productive outs.

Now, I don't know about you, but even if I own two different teams (for two different sports) and only one sports team makes a profit and one doesn't. It means one team is making money and another isn't. It isn't a collective sum of the money pooled together by one team. Both teams are considered a seperate entity are they not? Hence the team still isn't making money. Even if the guy financing the team IS making money, he's making it from outside revenues that aren't associated with the team (which would be the other team). Here is the article from Forbes' Magazine. I suggest bugmenot.com to bypass the registration process after page one. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/1129/124.html A few quotes...

Barry Bonds. Essentially, the Giants had Bonds reaching base 60% of the time, and while they had no impact hitters, they also had few holes.

So while criticising those greedy players, I am supposed to feel sympathetic to owners who own entire arenas and multiple franchises? Poor babies. You missed the point entirely. Why should I believe the Forbes report when they do stuff like this? Let me preface this by saying I haven't read the report. Basically, it is a matter of opinion. An arena owner needs events to run their business. Approximately 40 games a year is a significant income generator. If you don't run hockey games, you still have an empty arena to maintnance. I am really not an expert in this regard, and I wish I had someone more enlightened to explain the finer details.

You came to the wrong forum. This is abuse.

22 picks, and not one poster predicted Troy Percival to the Tigers. Just goes to show how random this process can be sometimes.

No, you should hate them both and care about yourself. Ie. Dethroning Atlanta in the East. I tried. Ed Wade won't return my phone calls.

After the Angels in 2002 and the Marlins in '03, I really can't look at a team and say there's no chance they'll compete next year. Crazy things happen in baseball, and I'm not sanguine on the White Sox' chances anyway. The Tigers have a decent group of young players. Their pitching was a big weakness, and Urbina really wasn't even that good. They will be an interesting team next year, especially if Jeremy Bonderman becomes as good I think he will.

If you go to arbitration in the NHL Al, and arbitration says "yes, this is his market value" and agrees with the value 100% and he is a tier 2 (I think it is two that I'm thinking of) restricted free agent, the NHL team HAS to sign them. They don't get a choice. I might have the wrong tier, but there is a certain tier that if they win the arbitration, they automatically get re-signed at that price. This is what we are trying to tell you. This type of tier is one that many players have when you have their rights till 30 get. Hence the problem of just releasing them. You can't. Edit: You can release them but they have to release them through waivers and get tagged with some if not all of the salary. So that isn't feesible either. You misunderstand. Before a player is eligible for free agency, his rights are retained by a single team. When the team does not have a player under contract, they have three options. 1. Reach an agreement on a new contract. 2. Proceed towards an arbitration hearing to determine a fair contract. 3. Release the player BEFORE offering arbitration. There is the main point. A team is stuck with the contract after arbitration. But they may elect to cut him loose, and a good franchise probably employs someone who can create a fair estimate of what arbitration will grant him. Essentially, you make the decision before the arbitration deadline, and go from there. It's called "non tender".