We're already dealing with the bullshit from the A-Rod roids scandal. Public relations doesn't even faze us.


As far as workload goes, sure he probably won't be racking up the saves because he's splitting time with Betances & (possibly) Miller. But with a rotation that had EVERYBODY go on the DL last season, 6 inning outings is looking like the norm. These days, a 7-8-9 bullpen bridge should be on every team's wishlist.

The issue and risk isn't with the workload. It's with the idea that he could be serving a suspension and God knows when and what part of the season that'll be handed down and how long. A 50 game suspension is going to hurt, especially if it's mid year.

Nats sign Stephen Drew. 1-year, $3 mil.

Drew hasn't been any good in like 2 years. Can't see why he keeps getting a chance. Oh well.

<font color=goldenrod>One thing that could possibly work in the Yankees' favor...Chapman's service time is 5.034. 138 more days on a big league roster will push him over 6 years of service needed for free agency.

If MLB comes down hard on Chapman and issues him a suspension that takes up around 40-45 games or so, it could possibly allow the Yankees to keep Chapman for an entire extra year of service.</font>

Does a suspension not count for service time? Pretty sure it's still considered even if he's not on the active roster.

<font color=goldenrod>Used to be the case under the old CBA. Was changed for the most recent CBA as the feeling that it was punishing the team. Now you only gain service time on the active roster, Major League DL, or bereavement lists.

Depending on what happens with Chapman this season it could be something that the union lobbies to get back when the CBA expires after next season.</font>

Sorry Droford, Kris Bryant got engaged.

Dodgers signed Scott Kazmir to a 3 year, $48 million deal.

Yikes.

Where'd those years and that dollar figure come from?

My favorite Cub player actually Rizzo

One good year is where it came from. Even after his "comeback" Kazmir has never been more than just average. So he's a bit overpaid but it's not ridiculously so. Besides, Dodgers needed another starter after they had Greinke pulled out from under them and backed away from Iwakuma.

Their rotation is still pretty solid. Kershaw is, well, Kershaw, and Kazmir, Ryu (if healthy) Anderson and Wood fills out a good if unspectacular rotation.

<font color=goldenrod>Kazmir has an opt-out clause after year one of the contract. That's fucking ridiculous.</font>

It's brilliant. Strasburg is the only worthwhile arm on the market. Kazmir could clean up in his next contract and the Dodgers would likely get a draft pick. Win win my man.

<font color=goldenrod>Everybody is going to get a year one opt-out before long.

Harper will make over $500 million or something over the course of his career.</font>

Peggy Bundy: Thank Arod kids!

Thanks Arod!!

Considering the discrepancy between what the owners are raking in as compared to the talent generating the revenue, I don't see the big deal.

Does every team operate in the black every year?

Yes. Even the supposed "poor" teams get revenue sharing money (remember when the Marlins got a stern talkin' to when they didnt spend on players and just pocketed that revenue sharing cash) and have probably gotten various government entities to take out large loans or bonds to pay for a new stadium they don't owe any debt on.

Paul Beeston, former Jays President has said in the past "I can take a 4 million dollar profit, make it look like a 2 million dollar loss and get every national accounting firm to agree with me." So even when they cry poor.....they aint.

Baseball is the richest its been. The owners are making massive sums of money. That's why you're seeing these huge dealsfor $30million a year and why it's the new market value for the elite. That cash isn't spent if the profits don't justify it.

How about those billion.....I'll say it again.....billion dollar deals for tv rights? The bloody dbacks have a 1.5 billion dollar deal.

<font color=goldenrod>I don't care so much about the players making more money as much as the fact that opt-out deals could lead to everybody becoming a free agent every year.

Like imagine if every player in that loaded 2018 free agent class (Harper, McCutchen, Donaldson, Machado, Kershaw, Harvey, Fernandez, Keuchel, etc.) got a year one opt-out and they all hit the market again in 2019 and every year after that. It would just be bad for baseball if there was that much roster turnover league wide every year.</font>

<font color=goldenrod>I expect the owners will try to lobby for opt-out regulations in the next CBA, but I can't see the union budging on the issue. Could lead to a stalemate once the epic free agent market comes up.</font>

Yup.

TV deals alone give teams enough money where they could be as fiscally irresponsible as the Yankees/Dodgers in their worst years and still manage to come out ahead. The benefits of being the only show in town during the summer. Cable companies are dying to keep the teams on their feed to fill otherwise dead air

Cubs are going to sign a trillion dollar deal when their current one with Comcast expires. Then they'll pay Jason Hayward 300 million just cuz.

Opt out clauses are better for teams. They potentially keep them off the hook for money the player likely won't be worth down the line and recoup draft picks in some cases. They serve to get the player a longer guarantee down the line, ala b Arod, Sabathia, Greinke, etc.

People are acting like player/team/mutual options are a new thing. I realize it's typically been for the last year of a deal, but it's existed in these various forms for a while. The guys who sign those early team friendly deals often have a clause where the player can opt out of the contract and into arbitration.

It's not going to cause any kind of major shift in the market since the general concept has been in practice for a while already.

<font color=goldenrod>If you were offered a 10 year, $300 million standard contract or a 10 year, $275 million contract with an opt out after year one, which would you pick?

Because I'm pretty sure a lot of players would take the latter one. If they put up the type of season that got them that contract in the first place...they can opt out and make even more. If they regress, get hurt, or have a shit year, they still have the protection of the rest of the contract and still make a shitpile of money.</font>

<font color=goldenrod>I'm fine with the players getting paid. They definitely should.

I just don't want it to reach the point where the offseason becomes a glorified fantasy baseball auction draft. And that's what will end up happening if the year one opt-out becomes the new norm.</font>

I'd definitely take the latter. The goal is to gain as long a long-term commitment as possible. Opt outs like Greinke, Arod or Sabathia had are more likely the norm.

Speaking on one year extravaganzas...I read a suggestion to offset teams holding down minor league talent for an extra year of service time. Instead, those who would otherwise qualify that end up being held down, like Kris Bryant, would use the extra year gained as a restricted free agent year. Other teams are given a chance on a one year bid to sign the player, and the original club has the right to match the offer or let the player go.

Not sure how compensation would work for the losing team but it's definitely far more interesting than "let's not increase our chances of winning to try and gain an extra year".

and Dodgers fans bitched that the revenue sharing money they sent is paying for Greinke. Which is kinda the point.

Could see that becoming a big issue with new CBA talks if it gets abused too much or too many teams get burned by that point.

Either that or a team pulls a Marlins by winning a title with a bunch of quick opt-out players and then just lets those guys leave since their risk paid off. Other teams would then be on the hook for new massive contracts or the market for those players bust because of the price tags.

Dodgers agree to terms with Kenta Maeda from the Hiroshima Carp. Dollar figures haven't been released but the Dodgers did pony up the $20 mil. max fee to talk with him.

Was hoping this would be the last big move for the Cubs. Sounds like a solid #3 with possible #2 upside/ceiling.

Maeda deal is 8 years, 24 million guaranteed with 10-12 million per season in incentives. Sheeeeeeeeeit.

Good fucking Christ. I'm sure he'll be solid but 8years for a mid rotation starter? Yikes.

Paidea.

That's a rather unique deal if I ever heard one before. Although, I'm interested in that those yearly incentives are. Must be easy to hit if they're giving out that much.

<font color=goldenrod>Another HOF update. 138 ballots now public which is roughly a third of the ballot, a good sample size.

Griffey still batting 1.000 as he should be. Doubtless some idiot won't vote for him but his induction was never in question.

Piazza (88.4%), Bagwell (82.6%), and Raines (80.4%) are still above the 75% threshold but their numbers have gone down in the last week and a half. Generally a safe bet that the numbers will go down at the end because many of the old school writers won't release their ballots. Probably will come down to a photo finish for Bagwell and Raines may end up being close enough to benefit from the "last chance" support that he'll get next year.

Hoffman's only at 62.3%, he may actually pick up votes at the end with the older voters favoring saves. He'll miss out but should be relatively safe to stay on the ballots the next few years.

Wagner, on the other hand, not only will miss out on induction but right now he's projected to be dropped from the ballot entirely. I think he'll grab enough votes to hang on but I would have thought he'd poll similarly to Hoffman. Either way I think both guys could be in trouble come 2019 when Rivera jumps on the ballot.</font>

Ryan(s) Howard and Zimmerman have filed defamation lawsuits against Al Jazeera.