Jump to content

official off topic thread.


pumpkin cutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

Mets fans, did the Mets just sign a 37 year old pitcher to a 3 year, $130 million contract??

They did.

It's obviously risky...Scherzer was his usual dominant self last season and hasn't really shown any signs of decline, but as we know, sh!t can definitely go wrong as a player reaches an age when many of his peers are either shells of their former selves, or simply no longer able to play and/or retiring.

Money is no object to new owner Steve Cohen (this will be his second season owning the team)...baseball has a luxury tax when a team payroll exceeds a certain threshold (not sure exactly what number that is), and Cohen simply doesn't care...he made it clear that he has no interest in going over the threshold by a couple of million.  He's a billionaire several times over who (off the top of my head) is worth more than the next three wealthiest teams' majority owners combined.  As a fan, all you can ask is that if your ownership has the resources, that he put them into the on-field product.  As a Met fan, it's nuts, because we basically went from knowing that the Mets would be out on the pricier names, to a guy who not only knows he'll have to overpay some guys who otherwise would never want to go to the Mets, but doesn't mind doing it to an insane degree.  I'm not complaining...if you're able to build a winner, and the franchise's rep improves as a result, you likely won't have to keep overpaying to this extent...some players will be willing to take a little less to become part of a successful franchise.  

The game needs a cap AND a floor...there's teams who simply refuse to spend, and take any revenue sharing (from teams being over the luxury tax) and shove it right in their pockets.  There's entire TEAMS making just above or just below what Scherzer just signed for.  People will hate the Mets (same as they hate the Yankees and other teams who spend a ton), but as long as they're not breaking any rules, it is what it is.  Obviously the "cost effective" method is to build a prospect train and keep filtering in new, cost-controlled players as others leave for big paydays.  But yeah, the disparity between what some teams can spend compared to others is...well...nuts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

They did.

It's obviously risky...Scherzer was his usual dominant self last season and hasn't really shown any signs of decline, but as we know, sh!t can definitely go wrong as a player reaches an age when many of his peers are either shells of their former selves, or simply no longer able to play and/or retiring.

Dude, he's a Met. You know at least half of that contract he will be out having Tommy John surgery. 

  • Like 2
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

They did.

It's obviously risky...Scherzer was his usual dominant self last season and hasn't really shown any signs of decline, but as we know, sh!t can definitely go wrong as a player reaches an age when many of his peers are either shells of their former selves, or simply no longer able to play and/or retiring.

Money is no object to new owner Steve Cohen (this will be his second season owning the team)...baseball has a luxury tax when a team payroll exceeds a certain threshold (not sure exactly what number that is), and Cohen simply doesn't care...he made it clear that he has no interest in going over the threshold by a couple of million.  He's a billionaire several times over who (off the top of my head) is worth more than the next three wealthiest teams' majority owners combined.  As a fan, all you can ask is that if your ownership has the resources, that he put them into the on-field product.  As a Met fan, it's nuts, because we basically went from knowing that the Mets would be out on the pricier names, to a guy who not only knows he'll have to overpay some guys who otherwise would never want to go to the Mets, but doesn't mind doing it to an insane degree.  I'm not complaining...if you're able to build a winner, and the franchise's rep improves as a result, you likely won't have to keep overpaying to this extent...some players will be willing to take a little less to become part of a successful franchise.  

The game needs a cap AND a floor...there's teams who simply refuse to spend, and take any revenue sharing (from teams being over the luxury tax) and shove it right in their pockets.  There's entire TEAMS making just above or just below what Scherzer just signed for.  People will hate the Mets (same as they hate the Yankees and other teams who spend a ton), but as long as they're not breaking any rules, it is what it is.  Obviously the "cost effective" method is to build a prospect train and keep filtering in new, cost-controlled players as others leave for big paydays.  But yeah, the disparity between what some teams can spend compared to others is...well...nuts.  

I only follow baseball on a very top-level sort of way.  I am extremely curious which teams are those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

I only follow baseball on a very top-level sort of way.  I am extremely curious which teams are those?

This article shows a list:  Opinion: MLB's payroll disparity has become laughable, threatening the integrity of sport (msn.com)

Teams like Pittsburgh, Miami, and others (some small-market teams) are known for not spending much (or not as much as they could).  

The problem currently is that some teams are clearly embracing the tank...and as far as MLB goes, I can't blame them.  Why overpay in FA for a couple of mid-tier types that won't improve your team much (say, a team with a meh core), and maybe gets you to 80 wins or so, when you can can tank for a few years, stock up on young, cost-controlled talent, hope to build a core than won't kill your payroll for 4-5 years (and have enough left over to add rentals here and there, if your core matures into a contender), and then have a nice 3-5 year window where you have a real shot to win a WS.  This is what the Astros did.

Basically, if you're spending $100-120 million on a team that isn't going to win enough to make the postseason...might as well spend $40-50 million on a team that also won't make the postseason, take your lumps for a few years, and then hopefully build up a nice prospect train where as one guy leaves for a payday, his replacement is close enough that you can bring him up immediately the following season, or sign a relatively inexpensive stopgap player to get by for a year or two until that replacement is ready.  But the complaint in some circles is that 10 teams or so aren't really trying.  But yeah, if $100-120 million on a team that doesn't have good core is only going to win about 75-80 games, sure, spend $40-50 million on a team that wins 60-65, and do everything that you can to clean up in the draft, and field teams with payrolls well under $150 million that truly have a chance for a while. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

This article shows a list:  Opinion: MLB's payroll disparity has become laughable, threatening the integrity of sport (msn.com)

Teams like Pittsburgh, Miami, and others (some small-market teams) are known for not spending much (or not as much as they could).  

The problem currently is that some teams are clearly embracing the tank...and as far as MLB goes, I can't blame them.  Why overpay in FA for a couple of mid-tier types that won't improve your team much (say, a team with a meh core), and maybe gets you to 80 wins or so, when you can can tank for a few years, stock up on young, cost-controlled talent, hope to build a core than won't kill your payroll for 4-5 years (and have enough left over to add rentals here and there, if your core matures into a contender), and then have a nice 3-5 year window where you have a real shot to win a WS.  This is what the Astros did.

Basically, if you're spending $100-120 million on a team that isn't going to win enough to make the postseason...might as well spend $40-50 million on a team that also won't make the postseason, take your lumps for a few years, and then hopefully build up a nice prospect train where as one guy leaves for a payday, his replacement is close enough that you can bring him up immediately the following season, or sign a relatively inexpensive stopgap player to get by for a year or two until that replacement is ready.  But the complaint in some circles is that 10 teams or so aren't really trying.  But yeah, if $100-120 million on a team that doesn't have good core is only going to win about 75-80 games, sure, spend $40-50 million on a team that wins 60-65, and do everything that you can to clean up in the draft, and field teams with payrolls well under $150 million that truly have a chance for a while. 

Thanks!

I am hearing about a possible lockout for MLB.  Is that true?  Is a cap floor one of the main points?

Also, do the other major leagues (NBA, NFL) have cap floors?  I am assuming yes, but not sure as I don't focus much outside of hockey and a little bit of soccer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bostondevil11 said:

I would guess one of those teams is Baltimore. When they do spend they do not do it wisley *see Chris Davis

Baltimore used to spend in the past, but yeah, not spending much now, and like you pointed out, they didn't always spend wisely.

Re:  Davis, he signed off a beastly year (2013), and after a bad 2014, did have a very good 2015.  But yeah, clearly didn't work out (and many of those long-term deals don't). 

 

EDIT:  My mistake, he signed after his good 2015 year.  That makes that signing look a lot more reckless...there were clear signs that his game wouldn't age well...and it sure didn't. 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

Thanks!

I am hearing about a possible lockout for MLB.  Is that true?  Is a cap floor one of the main points?

Also, do the other major leagues (NBA, NFL) have cap floors?  I am assuming yes, but not sure as I don't focus much outside of hockey and a little bit of soccer.

A MLB lockout is all but guaranteed...this week (I think it starts tomorrow).  What's hilarious about that is both sides are still doing plenty of business with each other, with tons of cash going to the players.  

Yeah the MLBPA is expected to seek a cap floor of about $100 million.  If anything, maybe teams who have a couple of young studs will be more inclined to keep them...but of course, those kids don't necessarily want to be the only ones getting paid, and stuck on a team that then can't (or won't) pay anyone else...most want to win.  It's definitely tricky...especially since a handful of teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Mets, etc can spend a sh!t-ton, compared to so many others).  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
20 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

Mets have hired Buck Showalter as their next manager. My only question is how in the fvck is he only 65 years old?? He coached the Yankees like 30 years ago and I feel like he looked 65 at that time. 

Lmao he was 36 when he became the Yankee manager, but yeah, he’s a little like Wendel Clark, In that he just always SEEMED older that he really was.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Lmao he was 36 when he became the Yankee manager, but yeah, he’s a little like Wendel Clark, In that he just always SEEMED older that he really was.  

I would have never realized that. I figured the dude was like 80 by now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the first 3 episodes of Station Eleven, it's apparently based on a book from 2014 but it starts off as a super extreme version of covid and then trails off into a bit of weirdness. Really haven't made up my mind about it yet but gonna keep watching.

Also have been watching yellowjackets, it's about a story of a New Jersey girls high school soccer team's plane who crashed and goes back and forth from the present of those who survived and back to the past of them in the woods trying to survive. It's been pretty good. There's some Devils item in the background here and there and the star ledger makes an appearance. 

Also just started succession last night, only watched 1 episode so far but it's been recommended to me enough that I had to start it, don't have an opinion only watching 1 episode so far but I'm not big on shows where I find all the characters completely unlikeable and that's all I really got out of the first episode.

Edited by Satans Hockey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Satans Hockey said:

I watched the first 3 episodes of Station Eleven, it's apparently based on a book from 2014 but it starts off as a super extreme version of covid and then trails off into a bit of weirdness. Really haven't made up my mind about it yet but gonna keep watching.

Also have been watching yellowjackets, it's about a story of a New Jersey girls high school soccer team's plane who crashed and goes back and forth from the present of those who survived and back to the past of them in the woods trying to survive. It's been pretty good. There's some Devils item in the background here and there and the star ledger makes an appearance. 

Also just started succession last night, only watched 1 episode so far but it's been recommended to me enough that I had to start it, don't have an opinion only watching 1 episode so far but I'm not big on shows where I find all the characters completely unlikeable and that's all I really got out of the first episode.

I think Yellowjackets is a great show. The way they are doing it as flashback/flash forward is more interesting than a lot of other shows that try that format. 

I also agree about Succession, though I’m told it takes a few episodes to start loving it…

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Satans Hockey said:

I watched the first 3 episodes of Station Eleven, it's apparently based on a book from 2014 but it starts off as a super extreme version of covid and then trails off into a bit of weirdness. Really haven't made up my mind about it yet but gonna keep watching.

Also have been watching yellowjackets, it's about a story of a New Jersey girls high school soccer team's plane who crashed and goes back and forth from the present of those who survived and back to the past of them in the woods trying to survive. It's been pretty good. There's some Devils item in the background here and there and the star ledger makes an appearance. 

Also just started succession last night, only watched 1 episode so far but it's been recommended to me enough that I had to start it, don't have an opinion only watching 1 episode so far but I'm not big on shows where I find all the characters completely unlikeable and that's all I really got out of the first episode.

I’m probably going to give Station Eleven a try soon. I’ve seen people say if you liked The Leftovers you’ll probably like it. And The Leftovers is one of my favorite shows ever. 

Succession is definitely not for you if you need likable characters lol. There’s really not a single one in the entire show. It’s so good though. The season 3 finale just aired a couple weeks ago, and I already miss it. 

I’m currently watching The Great on Hulu, and I’m loving it. Perfect blend of comedy and drama. Between this and Reservation Dogs I’ve already found a couple gems on Hulu since signing up for the bundle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

I think Yellowjackets is a great show. The way they are doing it as flashback/flash forward is more interesting than a lot of other shows that try that format. 

I also agree about Succession, though I’m told it takes a few episodes to start loving it…

Agreed and I really love the cast. Christina Ricci is great in her role. 

I've heard that too, I'm definitely gonna give it a few episodes before I decide on anything. 

3 hours ago, Nicomo said:

I’m probably going to give Station Eleven a try soon. I’ve seen people say if you liked The Leftovers you’ll probably like it. And The Leftovers is one of my favorite shows ever. 

Succession is definitely not for you if you need likable characters lol. There’s really not a single one in the entire show. It’s so good though. The season 3 finale just aired a couple weeks ago, and I already miss it. 

I’m currently watching The Great on Hulu, and I’m loving it. Perfect blend of comedy and drama. Between this and Reservation Dogs I’ve already found a couple gems on Hulu since signing up for the bundle. 

I loved the leftovers too and I can definitely see a bit of comparison there but I'm not enjoying this show like I did with the leftovers, for this show I was expecting more of it being a focus on the flu that hit everyone but didn't realize that was only part of it all. I'm just glad it didn't go the zombies route cause there was one moment where I thought one guy was a zombie and I would have bailed immediately lol

Haven't seen the great before but reading the description reminds me a bit of miracle workers on tbs with Daniel Radcliffe and Steve Buscemi, each season is a different era and it's the same cast each season playing different roles and its all over the top ridiculous. Season 1 was about them working in heaven under god(Buscemi) season 2 was set in the dark ages and season 3 was the Oregon trail lol

Edited by Satans Hockey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, pumpkin cutter said:

new matrix was good the last half. wonder if they continue or just end it. 

I'm gonna check it out this week. I just discovered the Animatrix on HBO Max and it's fantastic. I'm not a big animation guy for no reason really except for maybe not a lot of exposure to it, but after falling in love with Love, Death, & Robots I decided to check this out and I'm really appreciating animation as an art form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Crisis said:

I'm gonna check it out this week. I just discovered the Animatrix on HBO Max and it's fantastic. I'm not a big animation guy for no reason really except for maybe not a lot of exposure to it, but after falling in love with Love, Death, & Robots I decided to check this out and I'm really appreciating animation as an art form.

i gotta check that out. thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.