MLB Off-Topic

[Mabster]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Looking at the date of that article, just sad that not one step forward has been made towards progress if a new stadium.

[redsox4evur]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Full credit goes to Curt Schilling for this topic. You can give out a 10 year $250 million to any player over the last 30 years who is it or are they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sportsforever]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Full credit goes to Curt Schilling for this topic. You can give out a 10 year $250 million to any player over the last 30 years who is it or are they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Barry Bonds...every day and twice on Sunday.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Full credit goes to Curt Schilling for this topic. You can give out a 10 year $250 million to any player over the last 30 years who is it or are they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Original Seattle version of Griffey Jr.
2001 Albert Pujols.
Bonds as was mentioned.
A-Rod the first time.
Maddux.
Pedro.
Seattle/Houston/Arizona Unit.
Cleveland/Boston Manny Ramirez.
1992 Frank Thomas.
Miguel Cabrera
Clayton Kershaw

Probably some others. Not really that interesting of a topic (no offense to the OP, but intended at Schilling thinking he has some great idea here, lol).

[l3ulvl]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Probably some others. Not really that interesting of a topic (no offense to the OP, but intended at Schilling thinking he has some great idea here, lol).

I was kinda confused by the 10 years $250M question and how it differs from asking who had the best 10 year run, unless I'm misunderstanding the intent, why make it a contract? Just ask who had the best 10 year run the last 30 years, unless he's only trying to include guys that haven't had 10 years of service time yet, but still

[SPTO]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

As much as a loathe the man and the fact that he's the poster child for the era it would have to be Bonds.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I was kinda confused by the 10 years $250M question and how it differs from asking who had the best 10 year run, unless I'm misunderstanding the intent, why make it a contract? Just ask who had the best 10 year run the last 30 years, unless he's only trying to include guys that haven't had 10 years of service time yet, but still

Not having seen Schilling actually hatch the idea, my guess is that he's trying to basically say nobody is worth that kind of money. Hence framing it in terms of a contract instead of 10-year performances.

[AC]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Mike Trout

[Chip Douglass]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Seems like he's basically asking, "Who had the best 10 year run over the last 30 years?"

The answer is, "Pick any 10 year window of Barry Bonds' career from 1989-2004."

[redsox4evur]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Not having seen Schilling actually hatch the idea, my guess is that he's trying to basically say nobody is worth that kind of money. Hence framing it in terms of a contract instead of 10-year performances.

Yea that's what it was. He said there was only 1 or 2 guys he would give that contract to. The only name he brought up was Maddux.

The way it came was someone asked him about signing Betts and Bogaerts and his buddy said it would take nearly 500M to sign them both. And ten year contracts. So the question was framed as I had stated, "Over the last 30 years who would you give a 10 year $250 million contract to?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

For him to say no one is worth that money is asinine, of course they are. There's more money in sports so the players make more. A-Rod's first 10 year contract when it was signed was exactly twice as big as the biggest deal at the time, signing him today (or Bryce or Trout for that long) would probably take twice as much as that deal did. 250 million then isn't the same as 250 million now. You would easily sign Bryce for 10, 250 right now...the problem is that you can't. It would take 10, 400 most likely just to start the discussion.

[SPTO]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

For him to say no one is worth that money is asinine, of course they are. There's more money in sports so the players make more. A-Rod's first 10 year contract when it was signed was exactly twice as big as the biggest deal at the time, signing him today (or Bryce or Trout for that long) would probably take twice as much as that deal did. 250 million then isn't the same as 250 million now. You would easily sign Bryce for 10, 250 right now...the problem is that you can't. It would take 10, 400 most likely just to start the discussion.

I get what you're saying but c'mon...is ANYONE worth that kind of money? Keep in mind that they're not exactly making a difference in the world. Do these guys even need that kind of dough? They're making so much money that their grandkids' grandkids won't have to worry about a thing.

The outlandish money in sports is one of my biggest pet peeves so I try not to think about it too much. I'm resigned to the fact that these guys get paid like royalty but if it comes up i'm still going to raise this fact from time to time.


On a completely different matter, I was made aware of this pretty awesome online/social media historical fiction project being done by ESPN. 1927: The Diary of Myles Thomas . I was only made aware of this yesterday and it looks pretty damn awesome.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Yes, they are worth that money because that's what they generate for their business. People that make other people lots of money make lots of money. I thought it absurd to hear bankers were making millions but that's the world we live in. If the players get half of the league's revenue and the league is making twice as much revenue, then the players get twice as much money. Otherwise the owners just sit on it. What is your alternative? The players don't deserve the money so who does because the money is there? I would understand an argument if sports weren't a multi-billion dollar industry, but they are.

[fatleg3]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Griffey Jr. before the injuries....

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[slickdtc]

MLB Off-Topic

I see this as the QB's resetting the bar for contracts in the NFL.

A player might not be as good as Trout is 10 years from now, but that player will make more then him when he signs his mega contract. If you're close enough in talent, that's just how it works.

I suppose there is a ceiling eventually, but I don't know where it is.