Author Topic: Around Baseball  (Read 636417 times)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7586
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23400 on: November 26, 2025, 07:45:21 pm »
With deferrals, Cease is 7/$182.  $26 AAV
Informative Informative x 1 View List

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7170
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23401 on: November 26, 2025, 07:51:19 pm »
Are you arguing that they should get $10M lux hits in 2033-2039? 

Or are you arguing that they should get luxed at $30 AAV during the 2026-2032 seasons?

My initial argument was the former, but I would be OK with the latter.  The underlying point is that to have to deferred money escape the CBT altogether is unacceptable.
Agree Agree x 2 View List

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20339
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23402 on: November 26, 2025, 07:58:42 pm »
Of course teams like the Dodgers and Jays probably don't care very much about the CBT anyway.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7586
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23403 on: November 26, 2025, 09:00:35 pm »
Of course teams like the Dodgers and Jays probably don't care very much about the CBT anyway.

Rogers Communications—owner of the Jays—has assets that dwarf the Ricketts family assets.  Not even close.

Rogers Communications:

Market capitalization: Approximately US$21.314 billion.

Revenue: US$14.98 billion (based on latest available CAD figures of $21.02 billion).

Earnings: US$4.81 billion (based on latest available CAD figures of $6.75 billion)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18846
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23404 on: November 27, 2025, 01:12:53 pm »
A company that is publicly traded thinks it is good sense to spend money a good players and put out a quality product to increase profits. Can the Cubs get listed?

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23405 on: November 27, 2025, 03:16:52 pm »
Completely off topic but I think the only thing that will push Team Ricketts to spend more will be when Justin Ishbia takes over the Sox (2029 at the earliest) and shows a willingness to spend.  I can't imagine the Ricketts would allow the Cubs to be #2 in Chicago in spending.  The fanbase would lose it (not that Team Ricketts has modified spending based on fans).
Agree Agree x 1 Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5916
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23406 on: November 27, 2025, 03:27:20 pm »
A company that is publicly traded thinks it is good sense to spend money a good players and put out a quality product to increase profits. Can the Cubs get listed?

The backwater town of Green Bay owns and maintains a world class sports franchise.

Could you imagine if Cub fans owned the Cubs… sigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20339
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23407 on: December 07, 2025, 08:56:23 pm »
I'm kind of OK with Kent getting into the HoF. All-time 2B leader in home runs and 56 WAR. Even if he was rarely a truly dominant player, his cumulative record is probably good enough.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26959
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23408 on: December 07, 2025, 09:48:26 pm »
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with Kent getting into the HOF based on his stats. I have some "character clause" concerns, but that's only subjectively applied.

He had a teammate that deserved it much, much more. 
Agree Agree x 1 View List

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20339
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23409 on: December 07, 2025, 09:52:41 pm »
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with Kent getting into the HOF based on his stats. I have some "character clause" concerns, but that's only subjectively applied.

He had a teammate that deserved it much, much more. 


J.T. Snow, helluva player.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26959
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23410 on: December 07, 2025, 09:54:24 pm »
Also, Andrew McCutchen is a modern (and better) version of Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20774
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23411 on: December 08, 2025, 04:03:13 am »
Also, Andrew McCutchen is a modern (and better) version of Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly.

This is where the tricky question of dominance versus longevity comes in. Mattingly in his prime was Tony Gwynn with elite power. In baseball, longevity seems to win out in that battle.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20339
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23412 on: December 08, 2025, 06:19:56 am »
Mattingly is nowhere close to a Hall of Famer. If he hadn't been a Yankee he'd never even be in the conversation.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16248
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23413 on: December 08, 2025, 08:18:21 am »
I'd have voted Dale Murphy.  Unlike many longevity guys, he wasn't great till age 24 or after 31.  But during the 8-year prime, he was so great.  Prime WAR's of 6.6, 6.1, 7.1, 5.5, 5.0, 7.7.  So in 8 seasons had six with WAR ≥5, back-to-back well-deserved MVP's, five straight gold-gloves at premium defensive positions, twice-HR champion.  Man was his prime great. 
Useful Useful x 1 View List

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5916
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #23414 on: December 08, 2025, 10:25:56 am »
McCutchen and Murphy would both get HOF votes from me.

Mattingly would not. His peak was too short at 4 years, and his full career numbers don't meet the benchmarks. Mattingly's HOF-case is largely a product of NYY hype, IMO.