MLB Offseason 2014-15: Wait, pitchers and catchers report WHEN?

[Skywalker]

Will certainly be interesting. Initial reports also said he was moving really well, so maybe like Vince Willfork, he's just one of those athletic fat guys? Guess we'll see what happens, can always look to start sliding him towards 1B or DH if mobility becomes an issue as the contract goes on. Replacing Middlebrooks' corpse at 3B, so gotta look better than that. Was hoping he'd show up in a little better shape, but will see how it pans out.

Ideally in a couple of years the Red Sox can move Sandoval to first (or DH, though I think Hanley Ramirez is destined for that to be honest), Bogaerts to third (I just don't see him as a shortstop long-term), and Deven Marrero to shortstop (assuming he doesn't get traded before then).

 

[Scout101]

Doesn't really hit well enough (i.e. power) to rank out well at 1B or DH, although as long as he can maintain some average, not the worst thing in the world if he has to go there at the end. The currently fading trend of the big DH sluggers is likely to die with Ortiz anyway, not much left there. Technically Fielder and Pujols too, but not sure what they've got left in the tank either...

Either way, though, there are definitely options where Sandoval could go without killing the Sox. Unlike a few other teams, no big albatross contracts at 1B or DH blocking him from a move.

 

[Use of Time]

Oh God. You had to mention Ortiz didn't you. You know what you have just done? Fueling the beantown persecution complex man.

Yay for attempting to bait a couple of us here. Would you prefer us to ignore it so you get the free shot, or respond so that you can point to it and say you told us so? Pretty lame either way, so moving on.

As for the actual comment, will just say that Ortiz only showed up in the list (that was supposed to not be released, and we never got the full list of names for, or what they tested for) in 2003. Hasn't been on any others that I'm aware of, and his post-2003 numbers look pretty decent...

It's a passing joke about sports man. Nobody is trying to bait anybody. There is really no reason whatsoever to take it personally. It just isn't that serious. You are an intelligent albeit passionate sports fan and a good poster.

 

[Timby]

Seen on Twitter:

 

[Use of Time]

Seen on Twitter:

God it would be great if Arod embraced this identity.

 

[Timby]

God it would be great if Arod embraced this identity.

When the word got out that the Yankees were demanding that Rodriguez make a public apology (fuckin' , considering he doesn't owe anyone any apologies), I was hoping he'd hold a two-hour press conference where he flipped off Bud Selig, the media and every Yankees fan who hates him, then at the end say "Fuckin' play ball," drop the mic and walk out.

 

[Use of Time]

God it would be great if Arod embraced this identity.

When the word got out that the Yankees were demanding that Rodriguez make a public apology (fuckin' , considering he doesn't owe anyone any apologies), I was hoping he'd hold a two-hour press conference where he flipped off Bud Selig, the media and every Yankees fan who hates him, then at the end say "Fuckin' play ball," drop the mic and walk out.

I hope he hits 900 homeruns this year and takes a victory lap on Wade Boggs horse with both both middle fingers in the air.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^I've got no love for A-Rod, but I completely agree with everyone who's calling out the Yankees for their hypocrisy; that they intend to honor Pettite while making Rodriguez into an even bigger pariah than he already is a perfect illustration of what their organization is all about.

To be fair, my favorite team let Bonds get away with plenty during his tenure before ushering Melky Cabrera toward the door as fast as they could--and, of course, they've done a lot to distance themselves from Bonds since his departure--but the Giants have never thumbed their noses at other teams (save the Dodgers) the way the Yankees have.

In other news, Pablo Sandoval is fat.

--Sran

 

[Dexter Remmick]

I appreciate Pablo. He's taking spring training to heart. There was a time when players used the spring to get into shape for the long slog that is the 162. Maybe others should take note, his numbers in Oct. are hard to dismiss.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^No question he can hit; I just don't think he's worth what Boston is paying him.

--Sran

 

[Scout101]

And as long as it doesn't prevent them from making a good move somewhere, and no one asks you to chip in for it, it doesn't matter. There's like 3 free agents in the last 20 years that were actually worth what they were paid over the contract, it's not a high number. Manny might be the last big contract that was actually fully earned, and even then they tried to spend half of it getting rid of him, and at one point he was offered for nothing and no one bit, so...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Bloody roftop owners are trying to stop construction. Again. Linky

 

[Timby]

A pro click.

Bloody roftop owners are trying to stop construction. Again. Linky

A contract is a contract. You don't get to piss on it just because you decide you don't like the terms anymore.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Actually, with a powerful enough legal team, the Cubs (and Ricketts specifically) can do exactly that.

 

[Timby]

^ Actually, with a powerful enough legal team, the Cubs (and Ricketts specifically) can do exactly that.

It's a ridiculous contract and the previous ownership was moronic to sign it instead of just telling the rooftop owners to go pound sand, but the language pretty clearly says the team can't expand Wrigley in such a way that obstructs rooftop views until 2024. Tom Ricketts can pay as many lawyers as he wants but he can't change the words on the page.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

the language pretty clearly says the team can't expand Wrigley in such a way that obstructs rooftop views until 2024.

Actually the contract says exactly the opposite. If it's an expansion, the Cubs can do whatever they want. Section 6.6: "Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this Agreement, including this section." (The problem is whether the construction of a scoreboard qualifies as an expansion. The Cubs say it does, the rooftop people say it doesn't.)

As for the lawyers: The Cubs, and Ricketts specifically, have access to enough funding and their own lawyers that they can pretty much 'eat' any penalties from breaching the contract.

 

[Timby]

the language pretty clearly says the team can't expand Wrigley in such a way that obstructs rooftop views until 2024.

Actually the contract says exactly the opposite. If it's an expansion, the Cubs can do whatever they want. Section 6.6: "Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this Agreement, including this section." (The problem is whether the construction of a scoreboard qualifies as an expansion. The Cubs say it does, the rooftop people say it doesn't.)

Right. However, the better, more viable pass-through for the Cubs is the bleacher work, because that is an expansion. However, you can make a pretty strong case that the scoreboard doesn't count as an expansion -- two friends of mine are Chicago-area attorneys who have been following this whole thing pretty closely, and both of them feel the scoreboard thing was the right tactic for the rooftop owners to use, because it's just erecting something on top of the walls, no different from a windscreen.

As for the lawyers: The Cubs, and Ricketts specifically, have access to enough funding and their own lawyers that they can pretty much 'eat' any penalties from breaching the contract.

I think the Cubs will eventually win in a long, protracted process, but not in any way due to Ricketts' money (he's still leveraged up to the gills from the purchase of the team; it was a condition of the sale), but rather due to the fact that the City Council and Rahm Emanuel very badly want this to happen. But all that being said, the bigger issue at play isn't this request for a temporary restraining order -- it's the lawsuit that was filed in federal court about a month ago and is still pending, because more and more judges have been expressing interest in smacking down the (quite frankly absurd) antitrust exemption that baseball teams enjoy.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The antitrust exemption is absurd, founded on faulty premises and is now founded on nothing, but it's not going to get struck down. It's clear that Congress doesn't want it to go away and could change it if they wanted to (and have modified it in the past to make it slightly more fair).

Here is a recent 9th Circuit case about that

The City of San Jose steps up to the plate to challenge the baseball industry’s 92-year old exemption from the antitrust laws. It joins the long line of litigants that have sought to overturn one of federal law’s most enduring anomalies.

...

Like Casey, San Jose has struck out here. The scope of the Supreme Court’s holding in Flood plainly extends to questions of franchise relocation. San Jose is, at bottom, asking us to deem Flood wrongly decided, and that we cannot do. Only Congress and the Supreme Court are empowered to question Flood’s continued vitality, and with it, the fate of baseball’s singular and historic exemption from the antitrust laws.

 

[Timby]

The antitrust exemption is absurd, founded on faulty premises and is now founded on nothing, but it's not going to get struck down. It's clear that Congress doesn't want it to go away and could change it if they wanted to (and have modified it in the past to make it slightly more fair).

Here is a recent 9th Circuit case about that

The City of San Jose steps up to the plate to challenge the baseball industry’s 92-year old exemption from the antitrust laws. It joins the long line of litigants that have sought to overturn one of federal law’s most enduring anomalies.

...

Like Casey, San Jose has struck out here. The scope of the Supreme Court’s holding in Flood plainly extends to questions of franchise relocation. San Jose is, at bottom, asking us to deem Flood wrongly decided, and that we cannot do. Only Congress and the Supreme Court are empowered to question Flood’s continued vitality, and with it, the fate of baseball’s singular and historic exemption from the antitrust laws.

Judge Kozinski's writing will never stop being amazing. (Still, though, fuck that decision, fuck the Giants and fuck MLB for backing the Giants in that case.)

 

[Jedi_Master]

The antitrust exemption is absurd, founded on faulty premises and is now founded on nothing, but it's not going to get struck down. It's clear that Congress doesn't want it to go away and could change it if they wanted to (and have modified it in the past to make it slightly more fair).

Here is a recent 9th Circuit case about that

The City of San Jose steps up to the plate to challenge the baseball industry’s 92-year old exemption from the antitrust laws. It joins the long line of litigants that have sought to overturn one of federal law’s most enduring anomalies.

...

Like Casey, San Jose has struck out here. The scope of the Supreme Court’s holding in Flood plainly extends to questions of franchise relocation. San Jose is, at bottom, asking us to deem Flood wrongly decided, and that we cannot do. Only Congress and the Supreme Court are empowered to question Flood’s continued vitality, and with it, the fate of baseball’s singular and historic exemption from the antitrust laws.

Judge Kozinski's writing will never stop being amazing. (Still, though, fuck that decision, fuck the Giants and fuck MLB for backing the Giants in that case.)

The Wolff brothers seem to have given up on the move and are investing in the nation's worst baseball stadium, and in new spring training facilities.

I would have loved to see the A's move to San Jose, but I must confess that there is something special about the fans in the bleachers, and I don't know if they could have matched that in San Jose.