If my math is correct: AL has 120 wins NL has 90 wins http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings/_/type/vs-division/group/5 Just look under the "INTR" column. I just added up each side quickly, so I could be off a game or two. It would be nice for the NL if you know Colorado won more than just 1 game in interleague this year. Only Washington, Pittsburgh and Arizona have winning records in interleague this year.
When did Washington say that? I didn't hear those comments. I mostly heard just what Maddon said and Rizzo's response to it.
Well Johnson admitted that he didn't physically see the pine tar but knew that Peralta used it. How did he know it? Because Peralta played for Washington in 2010. So of course Washington was just fine with letting Peralta cheat for them, but god forbid he cheats for someone else.
No problem, anytime. I knew the AL was winning the "series" but I didn't think it was by 30 games. That surprised me a bit.
Oh gotcha, yeah I did hear that then. Kind of surprising the Nationals would blow the whistle on Peralta in a somewhat meaningless game like that. You'd think they would hold back on that information in case they ever met in the WS.
2012 Interleague final tally 142-110. That is a .563 winning percentage. The American League has now "won" interleague play every season since 2003 and holds a .525 all-time winning percentage in interleague play (MLB.com). This was the last season that we'll be able to judge the "winner" of interleague play in June. Starting next season, the Astros will move to the American League West, giving each league 15 teams -- which means there will have to be at least one interleague series all season.
I hate the daily interleague thing, unless they have balanced schedules and have a DH in both leagues, just a bad idea all around. Part of the reason why interleague is successful as far as attendence is because it's viewed as a special event. Having it everyday you'll lose that special/uniqueness after awhile. MLB should just add 2 new teams to the AL and keep Houston in the NL. (Yes I realize that's much easier said then done).
Raul Mondesi Jr., a 19-year-old outfielder in the Brewers' system, thought he'd tied the game with a two-out, two-run home run in the bottom of the 10th for the Helena Brewers of the rookie-level Pioneer League. Instead, he was the final out of the game, despite hitting the ball over the fence. From the Independent Record in Helena, Mont.: [video=youtube;AOe4-z70HXA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOe4-z70HXA&feature=player_embedded[/video] Helena manager Jeff Isom told the newspaper that he didn't see the play, but noted he believed the umpire: "On any home run, the umpire has one job, and that's to watch the plate and make sure the runners touch it. He said [Mondesi] missed it by eight inches." For some, it may be tough to tell, simply by the video, if he did or didn't touch it, but the immediate reactions by both the umpire and catcher make it pretty clear he did. And yes, that is indeed the son of former big-leaguer Raul Mondesi.
Chase Utley is wearing No. 21 for the Lehigh Valley IronPigs tonight instead of 26, because the mascot already has No. 26
We heard about it yesterday but now it’s official. And thanks to the new rules of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, this will be the last big dollar international free agent signing you’ll be seeing:
He will be in the outfield sooner than later. Dodgers need all the help they can get right now. It will be nice though to have a potential long term outfield of Puig, Kemp and Ethier. Now if they could just get healthy, stay healthy and add a corner infielder bat...sigh.
Injuries have just killed us this year. We don't have an offense that can sustain with multiple injuries.
THIS IS NUTS!!! watch everybody run.....watch the first base coach , and the guy on first.... http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=22970091&source=MLB&gid=2012_07_08_minmlb_texmlb_1
The new CBA calls out a POOL of money that can be spread out over the players drafted in rounds 1-10 (or 1st 10 players drafted by same organization, etc) by a given organization (Each was different based on draft slots, # of picks, and other criteria, etc). Pitt FO can spread it out any way they see fit over these 10 spots, but they can not exceed the total POOL amount without penalty. So depending on what they may have already signed up with picks 2-10, they may not have enough to "Break the Bank" or convince him to sign - even if they wanted to pay above the SLOT MLB set up for his pick #. MLB will let them exceed and break the bank of course, but the penalty is loss of next year draft pick.
Ah OK I missed this with the new CBA. Thanks for the clear explanation! Interesting idea... I like it.
So I thought the new CBA was suppose to help the bad teams or smaller market ones. If the Pirates (who in the past few years have been some of the biggest spenders in the draft) can't sign Appel because they don't want to forfeit their 1st round pick next year not sure how that slot cap really works.
Good point. I guess in theory it will stop a play from saying his price before the draft causing smaller market teams to pass, and letting the player fall to a team that will pay more? Does Appel want more money, or does he just want not want to play for Pitt? Or just love his time at Stanford?
I think Appel was expecting to go 1st overall so his signing bonus/slot money would have been much higher. There are rumblings now that he's going to go back to college for his senior year because next year's draft class is pretty weak apparently so he can try and be the #1 pick overall next year to get that money. I don't think a player drafted would ever not sign because a certain team drafted them, it all comes down to money for the most part (although I could see a high school player wanting to go to college for the experience etc). Again my problem with limited or mandating slots is that some of these players won't sign because of the money they've been offered by the team. The Orioles lost out on their 4th pick overall, although the kid says it's because he wants to go back to school to try and win a college WS, it's most likely due to the money.
I am thinking the opposite.....the NEW CBA by all accounts when it came to the draft was more of a help to big markets team than smaller ones.....or at least thats what they said... So you have a dollar slot figure for each position in the 1st round, you can go under it if you want and not be penalized if he turns it down, however if you go over the recommended slot number, AND the guy turns it down, you lose that pick next year.....so once you offer the contract, that is the equivalent of pressing the "place bet" button in these online gaming sites....you are locked in, and the gamble is on...... if thats the case and if you spend over the number, you would think that helps small market teams no? otherwise the bigger teams would just overspend on every slot right?
nothing wrong with the new CBA (at least nothing based on this scenario).....the kids feelings are hurt, he didnt go #1, he fell, but he still has options to return to college...so be it. Pitt took a measured gamble, but if they really wanted him its not about $$$....and the slots are just guidelines that MLB has been trying to get clubs to understand and do a better job managing funds for signing players. Its smart fiduciary responsibility. The system is fine right now....
Oh ok, so it's possible that both the Pirates and Orioles (two of the worst teams last year and for the past 15 or so) won't be able to sign their 1st round pick due to money limits but the new system is fine? Yeah the slots are just "guidelines" but if the team goes over those "guidelines" they lose a 1st round pick the next year. How exactly would that help a bad team or smaller market? It doesn't. Again the whole point of the new CBA was so the owners didn't have to spend money on the draft, it has nothing to do with fiduciary responsibilities, it has to do with keeping the rich (the owners) richer. This isn't about the kids feelings being hurt, it's about money, he wants more than the Pirates can give him without losing a pick next year. If Appel goes back to school over money it just proves the system doesn't help those poor teams. Pittsburgh has been one of the most aggressive spenders in the draft the past 4 or 5 years, if the new CBA didn't exist you can bet that Appel would be signing that contract. There was nothing wrong with the old system (except for not being able to trading draft picks but that's a different debate), the bad teams like Pittsburgh, Washington, Kansas City, San Diego and Baltimore spend money to get the better players in the draft. You're already starting to see improvements in Washington and slowly starting in Pittsburgh. If there's no cap at the MLB level there shouldn't be any caps/slots at the draft level. It makes no sense. Of course this all could be a moot point IF Appel blinks and signs. If he goes back to school it's a big black eye on the new CBA and a big hit to Pittsburgh.
I guess I may be misunderstanding the new rules. I fail to see how it even matters big or small market. If anything, if a team loses their pick if they go over the slotted amount, seems to be in favor of small markets. It would seem like it would keep big market teams from throwing money at picks that small markets cant afford.
Their were times in the past that smaller market teams passed on better players because they couldnt afford what the better prospect was going to command. Seems to me this helps that issue be no more. What am I missing?
No, Only if they exceed the alotted total POOL (not an individual slot)....they must manage their POOL of funds over those 10 picks. Listen even in the NFL power plays happen (ie Elway)....so Baseball is faced with kids able to return to college over signing...thats always been the case, and has been some of the leverage used - but eventually that leverage is diminished - so be it. Appeal is making the final decision. MLB wants all teams to show better fiscal restraint. Smart business. If this kid wants to go back to college (same with O's 4th rounder) so be it...they have that right. MLB is providing proper instructions on the POOL of funds, and letting each team do their own thing with the total pool. If Pitt really wants this kid and wants to forfeit a pick, go for it. Frankly, what it really sounds like is Pitt rolling the dice, and willing to come up craps, because they even know PAYING the unproven kid and his Agent what he is asking would be BAD for the club on many levels. Pitt is saying go back to college or take our very FAIR offer (deal with the fact 7 other franchises didnt want this headache, and Pitt rolled the dice @ #8). So its about $$$, and Pitt is saying they dont want to PAY him over what they feel he is worth...they have offered a fair deal, and they say for the first time in a long time, we are moving in the right direction, a fair offer is on the table for the #8 pick....they allocated over slot, but up to their POOL amount allowed. If the kid wants to go back to college, fine...Pitt says this kid isnt worth losing next years pick for it. Smart business by Pitt. Same with O's over a 4th rounder....! Thats what MLB wants to see...smart fiduciary responsibility. Its not chump change these kids are returning to college over. And that leverage is only good for 4 years! The kid is rolling the dice. It is so not a black eye...and thats the point. Kids passed up unlimited funds in the past to return to college...lets not go crazy on what this means. Frankly, I think this proves that the new leadership of Pitt, just like new leadership for O's and Wash, are all saying we are not going to be stupid like the past leadership and we wont break the bank on these HS or College kids with eligibility. Smart folks changing things and not repeating the mistakes of the past.
Because the small market teams aren't doing that anymore. Teams like Kansas City, San Diego and Pittsburgh have been some of the higher spenders in the drafts in recently years. MLB and the draft has really changed in the past 5 or 6 years, where before yes you're correct the small market teams were passing on guys that would cost them some money and went with a safer pick (like when Pittburgh passed on Upton in 2002ish). Now smaller market teams realize the only way to get better is to actually draft better and thus put money into the draft. So if this was I'd say 2004 or 2005 then yes I would agree with you but it's different now. Much different. When Jed Hoyer took over the Padres in 2009 he had one of the worst farm systems in baseball and when he left in 2011 he had one of the best. It was mostly because of their drafting (and also getting Casey Kelly, Reymond Fuentes and Anthony Rizzo in the Gonzalez deal). In a span of 2 years, the system went from one of the worst to one of the best.
I have not heard one single club complain about this new CBA preventing them from improving and managing their monies. I have heard sportswriters PROJECT what they think and claim things, but not a single club says they have been prevented from making decisions, etc. It just way to early to see how the CBA harms any club.....so its too early to claim it does.
