User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.4132 seconds
40 querie(s) executed

Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
dampen the scoring boom by changing the rules for what constituted a home run [in 1931]
say what?
Some weaker teams survived partly because they received a share of the gate when they played against popular teams like the Yankees, the Cubs and the Giants.
I thought only the NL had gate-sharing in those days.
From wikipedia:
Prior to 1931, a ball that bounced over an outfield fence during a major league game was considered a home run. The rule was changed to require the ball to clear the fence on the fly, and balls that reached the seats on a bounce became ground rule doubles in most parks. A carryover of the old rule is that if a player deflects a ball over the outfield fence without it touching the ground, it is a home run.
I couldn't help but thinking that Sabathia is ALWAYS worrying about where his next meal is coming from.
Interesting you should write that. I was roundly mocked when I suggested as much back in October.
Not by you. Just the general consensus then was that baseball wouldn't be impacted and certainly SALARIES wouldn't be affected.
I mentioned a while ago in the Lounge how I thought the Cubs sale would be affected and while not of the same level certainly didn't think I was right in the head.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.........
Wow, I knew that used to be the rule but I thought that was one of the rules that got changed back in the 1890s or something.
So how many of the Babe's HRs were "bouncies."
Interesting you should write that. I was roundly mocked when I suggested as much back in October.
Not by you. Just the general consensus then was that baseball wouldn't be impacted and certainly SALARIES wouldn't be affected.
I mentioned a while ago in the Lounge how I thought the Cubs sale would be affected and while not of the same level certainly didn't think I was right in the head.
As noted, they'll certainly be affected in the "discretionary" part of baseball revenue. But ...
1. MLB and most of its teams have long-term broadcasting rights agreements in place. I can imagine the networks, TV stations and cable systems involved would like to reduce their payments right about now but I assume most of these are pretty well locked in place and MLB and the teams get their money. I suppose with deflation, this is actually an increase in revenues. :-)
2. MLB is a much more high-market consumption item now than it used to be. Obviously the stock market craziness has negatively impacted the super-rich but the folks who will bear the brunt of the economic downturn weren't, for the most part, the folks going to games, buying internet packages, etc.
But, yeah, if we're sailing towards global depression, dougle-digit unemployment, etc. then baseball's revenues will be hurt and pretty substantially. Even the above two "recession proof" sources of revenue are likely to get smacked -- I wonder how many of those local broadcast TV stations are Trib-owned.* But, y'know, way back in October folks were trying not to think about that possibility.
* Talk about a disastrous combination -- indie TV stations, newspapers, and some expensive, old office buildings.
Now ... franchise values ... I assume a lot of these purchases were pretty highly leveraged to begin with. So the Cubs sale -- yep, the Trib is even more desperate to sell, also more desperate to get a good price while the potential buyers are finding it hard to get credit and took substantial hits to their paper fortunes.
Salaries -- well, it's been a little odd so far. Teixeira and CC got about what I expected (I was never running around with the $30 M scenarios), maybe a little less. I was saying from the start that the glut of good bat, no glove corner types on the FA market was going to suppres salaries there. Still I'll admit that Burrell has signed for much less than I thought he'd get but then I didn't think that Bradley and Ibanez would quite get that much (esp. years for Ibanez). On pitching, Dempster got more than I thought, Burnett is probably about where I expected maybe a little lower and who knows with Lowe.
Anyway, while I suspect there are plenty more on the way, the only contract so far which falls into the "I can't believe he was that cheap" category for me so far is Burrell. I suspect at least one GM is saying to himself "well, if I'd known I could have gotten Burell and Lowe for the same price as Teixeira..." So far this has been no bigger a "correction" than 2003-4 when Thome and Vlad got signed to bargain contracts. For those who don't remember, up until then, sluggers of that quality (Sosa, Delgado, Manny, Giambi) were getting $17-20 M a year, 5-8 years while Thome and Vlad were in the 4/$55 range. Really salaries have only recently gotten back to where they were around 2000.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main