MLB Off Season
#16
Posted 14 December 2009 - 07:17 PM
The McCourt divorce is fucking shit up, though. I ordered a dodger hat with fleece earflaps a month ago and it still hasn't even been shipped.
#17
Posted 14 December 2009 - 07:25 PM
he was a bargin basement pickup to . . . wasn't it something like 11M ? in my mind the bad thing about that signing was the length of contract, as $11M for a fading superstar was pretty much the going rate (before the economic collapse).
i am just not sold on this "blame it on the divorce" thing. i forget who covers the dodgers for the times, but whoever they had at the winter meetings said "the dodgers lack of signings have nothing to do with the divorce. any impact from the divorce will be seen in the years to come, but not now."
#18
Posted 14 December 2009 - 07:53 PM
Other than that, we wouldn't have been going after prize free agents like Lackey anyway. I think the only time I can remember the Dodgers signing a commodity free agent pitcher in the McCourt era is Derek Lowe.
#19
Posted 14 December 2009 - 08:18 PM
Just look at the Padres. They went from top 3 in the NL 3 seasons ago, to pieces of shit who make petco park look bad.the divorce is having an impact. looking back there have been signs. if i remember correctly plascke wrote an article on something similar.
for an owner who said his goal is to bring a consistent top contender and have a championship caliber team, he sure has backed off in moving in that direction.
the dodgers will do ok, but don't expect to get into the world series with its current players. i'll reassess once the season starts and again during the trade deadline.
not thrilled at the moment.
#20
Posted 14 December 2009 - 08:30 PM
he was a bargin basement pickup to . . . wasn't it something like 11M ? in my mind the bad thing about that signing was the length of contract, as $11M for a fading superstar was pretty much the going rate (before the economic collapse).
i am just not sold on this "blame it on the divorce" thing. i forget who covers the dodgers for the times, but whoever they had at the winter meetings said "the dodgers lack of signings have nothing to do with the divorce. any impact from the divorce will be seen in the years to come, but not now."
2 years, $36.2M is bargain basement?!?!
#21
Posted 14 December 2009 - 11:48 PM
Pedro Martinez or whoever isnt going to do it. I hope this Cuban kid is good and we can sign him.
#22
Posted 15 December 2009 - 12:01 PM
Isaac: So when I told you guys we were on it, I meant to say we're on the motherfucker, go back in there and relax...
#23
Posted 15 December 2009 - 12:10 PM
Matsui to Angels
Halliday to Phillies
Lee to Mariners
If the Angles dont get Bay this offseason is a failure!
C'mon the Galaxy!
Liverpool for the Premier League,FA Cup & League Cup!
St Mirren for a top half finish in the SPL!
C'mon Angels!
Google+
#24
Posted 15 December 2009 - 12:26 PM
Just read the article waking up.According to ESPN the Dodgers just traded Juan Pierre to the White Soxs for 2 players to be named and cash....
Hey Juan Pierre, you were so clutch while manny was out, we decided to reward you by letting you go.
I really hope we have a trick up our sleeves now. SMH.
edit* plus the dodgers are paying half of the $18.5 million still owed to pierre! makes no sense.
#25
Posted 15 December 2009 - 01:54 PM
i read this earlier, and you are leaving out one point . . .edit* plus the dodgers are paying half of the $18.5 million still owed to pierre! makes no sense.
that the dodgers can pick 2 players from a list of pitchers provided by the white sox. until we see who is on that last, it isn't possible to say if this is a good deal or not. personally, i find it hard to believe that the dodgers would give up pierre and pay part of his salary for bad pitching prospects.
if the dodgers can get 2 good pitching prospects out of this, i think it will go down as a great deal. after all, i don't expect pierre to replicate last season . . . as that is about the best you can expect from him. seems to me like a selling high, buying low kind of a deal . . . and those are usually good.
edit:
i just looked at pierre's stats . . . 2009 was his best year since '03 or '04 (depending how you look at the numbers). personally, i think it is a great time to trade him (as i don't think his value is going up higher than it is right now). does that mean i think he will stink next year, no. considering that he is not a starter for the dodgers, that he had his best numbers in at least 5 years, and that the dodgers need pitching . . . this move makes sense. i just hope the dodgers were smart enough to ensure that some good arms are on that list.
#26
Posted 15 December 2009 - 02:06 PM
which is exactly why i am saying . . . the divorce has nothing to do with this. the dodgers haven't been in the market for high cost players before the seperation/divorce, and they aren't now. my take is, the mccourts leveraged everything they had on acquiring the dodgers . . . and didn't have enough capital to become the yankees / red sox of the west coast.Other than that, we wouldn't have been going after prize free agents like Lackey anyway. I think the only time I can remember the Dodgers signing a commodity free agent pitcher in the McCourt era is Derek Lowe.
wasn't he signed to $11M annual contracts? i haven't looked it up but that is what i remember . . . if i am wrong, i am wrong . . . but that is what i thought they signed him to.2 years, $36.2M is bargain basement?!?!
edit
my bad . . . 9M for 2008, 15M for 2009, 12M signing bonus
#27
Posted 15 December 2009 - 05:56 PM
Who knew?
-H. L. Mencken
----------------------
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which "unskilled people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it." The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average.
#28
Posted 15 December 2009 - 06:14 PM
you are referring to cal football, right? if so, you are in the wrong thread.Hmmm...they still play this game?
Who knew?
#29
Posted 29 December 2009 - 12:28 PM
#30
Posted 29 December 2009 - 12:42 PM
Not the most convincing of long-term outlooks for the blue crew...
interesting read
The McCourts were bad news from day one. They had to use a tremendous amount of debt and leverage(more than most) to buy the franchise. It's a shame that Artie Moreno was not around to buy the team from Fox. Moreno continues to show that he is one of the better owners in baseball. Not sure if the Angels will ever be the top dog in LA, but if this situation plays out in the way that the Times thinks it might, watch out. I'd love to see someone like a Mark Cuban buy the team. He does not meddle, but he does have a sport IQ and knows what is needed to build a good franchise. I hope these carpetbaggers sell the team asap and go back to running parking lots and screwing their help.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users