Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, January 20, 2014

Daugherty: Have-not Reds can’t keep up with Baseball’s haves

Daugherty v. New Vanguard.

Money prompts the need for reassurance. Money talk in Baseball is boring, depressing and makes you want to lie down in a cool place. I’d rather take a Chappy fastball to the tear duct than talk about money, which really is the root of all hardball evil. And unfortunately, most hardball success.

The dirty little secret behind Bud Selig’s noble effort to climb the parity ladder is, it can’t be done. The outgoing commissioner of Baseball can talk all he wants about little markets and little money getting memberships at the country club, but talk is cheap. As cheap as the Reds local TV contract.

Teams have found a new way to guard the mansion gates. They pillage the pockets of networks seeking the local and regional television rights to their games. The money is staggering.

...The Reds can’t command a competitive local TV pile. The market won’t bear it. The only way they keep up is by being smarter in scouting, drafting and developing, and even that is getting harder. They’d never get Aroldis Chapman today, for what they paid in 2010. Everyone scouts 15-year-olds in the Dominican now. Japan? Forget it.

That’s why last summer was such a crusher, and why this offseason has only added to your pain. Reds ownership is not the federal government. It doesn’t spend money it doesn’t have, and can’t project. Boston, New York, LA etc. have a perpetually open window. Cincinnati does not.

Cincinnati still has a core capable of winning 90 games and making October. What it doesn’t have is an open invitation to eat until its eyeballs explode. That belongs to the Los Angeles Dodgers, who just spent $215 million on one pitcher, without needing Rolaids.

Repoz Posted: January 20, 2014 at 06:17 AM | 40 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: reds

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.

   1. The Tarp That Ate Vince Coleman Posted: January 20, 2014 at 09:49 AM (#4642498)
2013 Opening Day payrolls per Associated Press:

Cincinnati was 13th in MLB at $110,565,728
St. Louis was 11th in MLB at $116,702,085

Oh, CardsFan. When will your team ever win?
   2. ckash Posted: January 20, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4642500)
Didn't the Reds get part of that bushel of MLB TV money as well this winter? Daugherty is such a freaking hack.
   3. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 20, 2014 at 09:58 AM (#4642501)
I’d rather take a Chappy fastball to the tear duct than talk about money


Well then?
   4. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM (#4642503)
3 posts and no mention of the Phillips contract?

this place is slacking
   5. SG Posted: January 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM (#4642506)
Didn't the Reds get part of that bushel of MLB TV money as well this winter?


Sure, but so did everyone else. That doesn't really help them relative to the rest of the league.

That Phillips contract...
   6. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: January 20, 2014 at 10:33 AM (#4642508)
Daugherty: Have-not Reds can’t keep up with Baseball’s haves


You mean like the Pirates?
   7. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 20, 2014 at 10:36 AM (#4642510)
The problem isn't not being able to afford players. It's:

- Giving big money, multi-year contracts to relievers. Broxton and Marshall combined for 40 IP last year, at a cost of $8.5M; both are signed for 2 more years, for $27M total.
- "Rewarding" players for one good season. Ludwick has a rebound year, and they reward him by giving him (essentially) 2/$13M. He hit poorly in 140 PA last year. Learning that lesson, they gave Manny Parra 2/$5.5M this offseason.
- Giving too much money to bench players. Jack Hannahan was given 2/$4M, and was below replacement level. Learning that lesson, they gave Skip Schumacher 2/$5M this offseason.

3 posts and no mention of the Phillips contract?

this place is slacking
As long as BP stays a 2 win player, this is a good contract. He made $10M last year, and gets $11/12/13/14 the next 4 seasons. Even a slight bounce back from last year makes him a bargain.

What's really frustrating is that the Bruce, Cueto, and Votto contracts were really good; it's the bit players that are causing the finanical havoc.
   8. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM (#4642518)
Didn't the Reds get part of that bushel of MLB TV money as well this winter?

Sure, but so did everyone else. That doesn't really help them relative to the rest of the league.


A rising tide may lift all boats, but some people want to be carried once they've been lifted.
   9. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: January 20, 2014 at 11:10 AM (#4642541)
If MLB only had a salary cap, every team would be good every year.
   10. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 20, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4642556)
A rising tide may lift all boats, but some people want to be carried once they've been lifted.

You mean like the Yankees right? A team that bilked the public for funding, so they could build themselves a cash cow of a stadium. Then cried poor, and slashed payroll by what, 30-40m? more if you count luxury tax payments - so that the greedy owners could pocket more cash. That's what you meant, right?
   11. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 20, 2014 at 11:43 AM (#4642562)
You mean like the Yankees right?


Why are you so obsessed with the Yankees? DiNero wasn't so obsessed in "The Fan"

A team that bilked the public for funding


Has any team in baseball history invested more money in a stadium than the Yankees have for their current one?

I find all public expenditures towards professional sports facilities to be distasteful, but as a man of constant principle I can't in good conscience single out the Yankees, the team that pulls the wagon for so many teams, when there are a dozen other franchises holding their municipalities hostage for a far larger percentage of stadium costs.

Now if you're neither of a man of constant principle nor a man of good conscience I suppose you could seek to single out the Yankees, a team from whom over a billion dollars have been confiscated by the league, for not paying 100% of their stadium costs, but it's hard for me to put myself in the place of such dishonest thinking.

Then cried poor, and slashed payroll by what, 30-40m?


I don't see anyone associated with the New York Yankees, baseball's most beloved and successful franchise, crying poor. Recognizing that you've been targeted in a scam designed to deprive you of tens of millions of dollars of your own hard-earned and fairly-won and moving to avoid being victimized hardly constitutes crying poor.

more if you count luxury tax payments


Payments continually ratcheted up to punish certain teams.

so that the greedy owners could pocket more cash.


There's no shortage of greedy owners seeking to pocket more cash but given that the Yankees have consistently demonstrated their willingness to pay fair market value for baseball players while so many other franchise owners have repeatedly endorsed market suppressing schemes for their own benefits and to the detriment of the players, you may be targeting your ire in the wrong direction.
   12. Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey) Posted: January 20, 2014 at 11:51 AM (#4642566)
The Reds local tv contract with Fox Sports Ohio is up after 2015, I believe. We'll see what kind of contract they end up getting when they renew.

And, TDF is correct, it's the contracts to bit players that are dragging them down. The Broxton and Ludwick contracts were horrible when they were signed, and last year made them look even worse. Chris Heisey received $1.7 million in arb. I thought he would be non-tendered. It can't be that hard to find no-hit, ok defense outfielders for the league minimum.
   13. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 20, 2014 at 12:50 PM (#4642620)
You mean like the Yankees right?

Why are you so obsessed with the Yankees? DiNero wasn't so obsessed in "The Fan"

Hiiiiilarious, coming from the most single-minded, obsessed one-trick pony centaur on this board.
   14. valuearbitrageur Posted: January 20, 2014 at 01:07 PM (#4642635)
Has any team in baseball history invested more money in a stadium than the Yankees have for their current one?


I will bet many invested a higher percentage of their stadium's cost, yes.
   15. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 20, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4642674)
Has any team in baseball history invested more money in a stadium than the Yankees have for their current one?
I've posted this before, but Yankee's stadium cost twice the next highest-priced stadium - Citi cost a "mere" $660M.

They still were able to squeeze over $220M out of the public; wasn't a $900M stadium good enough?
   16. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 20, 2014 at 02:16 PM (#4642686)
Chris Heisey received $1.7 million in arb. I thought he would be non-tendered.
And yet Derrick Robinson, who's younger (by 3 years), cheaper (still pre-arb), and not any worse was non-tendered.
   17. cardsfanboy Posted: January 20, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4642695)
Has any team in baseball history invested more money in a stadium than the Yankees have for their current one?


Several teams have invested a higher percentage into their own stadiums. Going by raw dollar and pointing to the Yankee side of the equation is intentionally misleading.

How many dollars did the Giants bilk out of their public for their stadium? (based on earlier comments I'm going to assume roughly $220 million dollars less than the Yankees) Probably half the stadiums built in the past 2 decades have had fewer dollar amount provided by the public than the Yankees.
   18. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 20, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4642753)

Daugherty: Have-not Reds can’t keep up with Baseball’s haves

There is certainly some truth to what he writes, but also worth noting that he's talking about a team that has made the playoffs 3 of the last 4 years. They have been keeping up despite the financial disadvantages.
   19. Sonic Youk Posted: January 20, 2014 at 06:08 PM (#4642829)
Several teams have invested a higher percentage into their own stadiums. Going by raw dollar and pointing to the Yankee side of the equation is intentionally misleading.

How many dollars did the Giants bilk out of their public for their stadium? (based on earlier comments I'm going to assume roughly $220 million dollars less than the Yankees) Probably half the stadiums built in the past 2 decades have had fewer dollar amount provided by the public than the Yankees.



ehhh. if you're trying to make a *less* misleading argument, you can't just ignore the comparative size of NYC's budget.
   20. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 20, 2014 at 06:14 PM (#4642831)
if you're trying to make a *less* misleading argument, you can't just ignore the comparative size of NYC's budget.
If they built a stadium half as expensive, it would still have been as costly as Citi Field; the public would have saved $220M and the Yankees would have saved $400M.

They built a palace, then suggest they're good corporate citizens for "only" asking for 20% of the cost.
   21. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 20, 2014 at 07:59 PM (#4642865)
You mean like the Yankees right? A team that bilked the public for funding, so they could build themselves a cash cow of a stadium.

I don't think this meets any standard of accuracy, at least it shouldn't. The Yankees paid for the construction of New Yankee Stadium - the "subsidy" comes from being allowed to use tax-exempt bonds to finance the construction costs. I suppose one can criticize even that level of subsidy, but one ought to accurately describe what is being criticized. Most teams have received more favorable terms than the Yankees during the last couple of decades of stadium construction.
   22. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 12:47 AM (#4642962)
the "subsidy" comes from being allowed to use tax-exempt bonds to finance the construction costs.


Damn straight, and that comes to probably a billion dollars in forfeited tax revenue for a city that can't afford any of it. The Yankees don't pay property taxes on the stadium, either. Not to mention that these bond payments can be deducted from revenue sharing. Oh, and they hold on to receipts for the parking garages, which they didn't pay for.

Beyond all that, the main subsidy the Yankees get -- the thing that YR absolutely refuses to see, because it renders his entire ridiculous argument moot -- is a duopoly on the biggest market in baseball, in one of the wealthiest areas of the country. They get no team in North Jersey, no new team on Long Island, no AL team closer than Boston to the north, Cleveland to the east and Tampa to the south. They get the enormous, un-earned financial advantages that go along with that, and they get MLB's might preventing other teams from moving into baseball's ripest market.
   23. SoSH U at work Posted: January 21, 2014 at 01:01 AM (#4642969)
They get no team in North Jersey, no new team on Long Island, no AL team closer than Boston to the north, Cleveland to the east and Tampa to the south.


First there was 1969, then Jeffrey Maier, then Moose bolts. Now they're not just overlooked, but overlooked for Tampa.

   24. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2014 at 02:07 AM (#4642981)
They get no team in North Jersey, no new team on Long Island, no AL team closer than Boston to the north, Cleveland to the east and Tampa to the south.

The Yankees have to compete with another MLB team in their own market - a market that two teams fled in the 1950's. No one is interested in investing a billion plus dollars to put a team in New Jersey or Long Island, and even the politicians there are opposed to putting up stadium money. It would be much easier to restore the two-team status of Boston & Philadelphia than add a third team in NY, so why don't we start there?
   25. Squash Posted: January 21, 2014 at 04:03 AM (#4642991)
It would be much easier to restore the two-team status of Boston & Philadelphia than add a third team in NY, so why don't we start there?

Would it be easier? In Philly perhaps, but I don't know how you get another stadium into Boston. Either way, neither would be nearly as lucrative as putting a team in Brooklyn.

a market that two teams fled in the 1950's.

That's a bit of an overbid. The 1950s were 60+ years ago - the economics of America and baseball have changed a bit since then. And those two teams "fled" for California, the living realization of Manifest Destiny, the most economically attractive state in the union, which had zero major league teams at the time. If such a market were available today every single team in MLB would be chomping at the bit for it.
   26. Dr. Vaux Posted: January 21, 2014 at 04:32 AM (#4642994)
The Yankees' advantage isn't completely unearned. There were once three teams in New York, and the Yankees were the only one left standing in 1958. If the Dodgers or Giants had decided to stay, there would have been no Mets, and that team would have the duopoly. Of course, who knows what that would have been worth--it hasn't helped the Mets, after all.

And let's face it, there is never going to be a third team in an MLB market again. Things just aren't like that anymore.
   27. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:57 AM (#4643045)
I've posted this before, but Yankee's stadium cost twice the next highest-priced stadium - Citi cost a "mere" $660M.

They still were able to squeeze over $220M out of the public; wasn't a $900M stadium good enough?


You haven't voiced any concern over the Yankees having $150+ million confiscated from them annually for the selfish interests of well-connected plutocrats but when they choose to invest in their own franchise and infrastructure you're quick to don your green visor and play the scold. $220 million gifted once is an ungodly sin but confiscating $150 million every year in perpetuity can't be questioned.

This, of course, illustrates quite well the mindset of Yankee-hating snivelers. "They pay their players too much - they should make their team worse." "Their stadium is too grand - they should eschew their vision." "They're too popular and successful - they should be forced to be terrible." Green-eyed loser talk all around.

   28. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: January 21, 2014 at 10:07 AM (#4643050)
They get no team in North Jersey, no new team on Long Island, no AL team closer than Boston to the north, Cleveland to the east and Tampa to the south.

Their last two offseasons have sucked, but Baltimore still has an AL team.

   29. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: January 21, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4643054)
You haven't voiced any concern over the Yankees having $150+ million confiscated from them annually for the selfish interests of well-connected plutocrats but when they choose to invest in their own franchise and infrastructure you're quick to don your green visor and play the scold. $220 million gifted once is an ungodly sin but confiscating $150 million every year in perpetuity can't be questioned.

They're separate issues - the money is going into the pockets of other MLB owners, not New York. I doubt New York taxpayers gives a #### that Jeff Loria steals more from the Yankees than the Yankees stole from them. If someone mugs me to pay their bookie, I'm not going to be the least bit sympathetic to his claim of "I took $100 from you? Well Joey Shakes takes $1000 from me, so stop complaining!"
   30. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 10:12 AM (#4643057)
Beyond all that, the main subsidy the Yankees get -- the thing that YR absolutely refuses to see, because it renders his entire ridiculous argument moot -- is a duopoly on the biggest market in baseball, in one of the wealthiest areas of the country.


Of course I've only addressed this about a dozen times, but it is the nature of the Yankee-hating cockroach to ignore as much evidence as possible. Let me state this again, in capitalized letters so as to hopefully emphasize the sentiment for the last time:

I AM NOT OPPOSED TO ANY TEAM MOVING TO NEW YORK.

There's a well-established mechanism in place already for any given team to enter the market domain of another team. The Washington Nationals did so when they entered Baltimore's established territory. The Oakland A's are wrestling with it in their attempts to move to San Jose. I'm unaware of any team even proposing to move to the NY area in recent decades so this nonsenical canard is wrong on several levels.

Let me expound further, using again a manner of emphasis to catch your attention:

I AM NOT OPPOSED TO ELIMINATING ALL TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN BASEBALL

I am, of course, opposed to any patently unfair and unjust schemes such as eliminating territorial rights for only teams hand-picked for punishments while leaving all others intact. I am a man of constant principle after all. If the owners want to vote on eliminating territorial rights they should do so posthaste. Competition can be a good thing, spurring innovation in pursuit of customers. I imagine a team in Brooklyn, for example (probably not feasible, but offered as an example) could be marketed as "The Bums" complete with an intentionally stylized low-rent persona, fans in hobo garb, concessionaires dressed like panhandlers, Al Jolson singing "Hallelujah I'm a Bum" during the 7th inning stretch, etc., could be great fun and offer a different, distinct experience from the buttoned-down Yankees. I want teams to compete to create a better experience for baseball fans.

So please, please, dispense with this empty canard that the Yankees are privy so some sort of unearned privilege denied every other owner in baseball. The Yankees get to play in New York, with the same territorial rights as every other team in baseball, and they've excelled. The Mets get to play in New York, with the same territorial rights as the Yankees, and they suck.
   31. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 10:13 AM (#4643058)
They're separate issues - the money is going into the pockets of other MLB owners, not New York. I doubt New York taxpayers gives a #### that Jeff Loria steals more from the Yankees than the Yankees stole from them. If someone mugs me to pay their bookie, I'm not going to be the least bit sympathetic to his claim of "I took $100 from you? Well Joey Shakes takes $1000 from me, so stop complaining!"


Do you think onerously elevated taxes levied in an unfair (and indeed punitive) manner might drive rational individuals to unethical behavior?

(And of course the idea that the Yankees should be singled out for such deals while every other team that wheedled favorable deals from their municipalities with the express encouragement of Boris "Bud" Selig himself is dismissed with a shrug is ridiculous)
   32. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: January 21, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4643060)
DiNero wasn't so obsessed in "The Fan"


I don't know if this was an intentional typo given the subject, but it's awesome nonetheless. Maybe Anthony Weiner's next alias will be Roberto Dinero.

   33. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 21, 2014 at 10:31 AM (#4643078)
This, of course, illustrates quite well the mindset of Yankee-hating snivelers. "They pay their players too much - they should make their team worse." "Their stadium is too grand - they should eschew their vision." "They're too popular and successful - they should be forced to be terrible." Green-eyed loser talk all around.
This is rich. I've never, ever, denied the Yankees the ability the spend as much as they want on players; in fact, I've always defended them.

But that's not the issue. You are trying to make them out to be a beacon of goodness and light for "only" asking for 20% of the cost of their stadium be footed by the mouth-breathing masses when the reality is that in sheer dollars they're still getting more than many teams. Why wasn't a $1B stadium good enough, that they needed another $220M from the public trough?

I have no problem giving money to the United Way every year. But if I found out the Boy Scouts were using the money to put in a jaccuzzi and wet bar at the local camp, I'd ##### about that too.
   34. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 10:54 AM (#4643103)
But that's not the issue. You are trying to make them out to be a beacon of goodness and light for "only" asking for 20% of the cost of their stadium


As mentioned in very explicit and clear terms in #11, I find any use of public monies in the service of professional sports franchises to be distasteful. Were it up to me, I'd eliminate it by law. But of course it would be a law implemented fairly and evenly, not some slapdash attempt to punish some teams by disallowing them from partaking in the same sorts of funding as exploited by half the teams in the league.

The Yankees, the most popular and successful team in baseball who despite the ongoing attempts by the league to bleed them dry, nonetheless ponied up an enormous amount of money for their stadium - more money than any team in history has invested in their own home field. That fact is uncomfortable to some who want to deflect attention from the vampiric machinations of the welfare queens.
   35. Nasty Nate Posted: January 21, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4643181)
Wow, the new Yankee Stadium cost that much? That's like paying $250,000 for a Ford Focus.
   36. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 21, 2014 at 01:44 PM (#4643334)
the Yankees having $150+ million confiscated from them annually

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
   37. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4643494)
The Yankees' advantage isn't completely unearned.

The "Yankee Advantage" is entirely earned. Those attributing the Yankees' success to geography ignore the fact that New York City has had 4 MLB franchises and only one of them has had success that significantly outpaced its rivals. That success was based on a long history of investing in the team to a greater extent than other owners cared to do. Why would you want to discourage such investment while rewarding the "coupon clippers" who risk little of their own money while cashing those fat MLB checks?
   38. Nasty Nate Posted: January 21, 2014 at 04:17 PM (#4643513)
The "Yankee Advantage" is entirely earned. Those attributing the Yankees' success to geography ignore the fact that New York City has had 4 MLB franchises and only one of them has had success that significantly outpaced its rivals.

Isn't it clearly a combination of earned advantage and geography? "Entirely Earned" is bogus. Have the Mets entirely earned their huge franchise value?
Why would you want to discourage such investment while rewarding the "coupon clippers" who risk little of their own money while cashing those fat MLB checks?

Most of us here don't want to discourage that investment. But being spam-trolled by people other than yourself on the subject doesn't help.
   39. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 05:27 PM (#4643600)
the Yankees having $150+ million confiscated from them annually

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.


What an unusual deformity.
   40. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 05:35 PM (#4643605)
Why would you want to discourage such investment while rewarding the "coupon clippers" who risk little of their own money while cashing those fat MLB checks?

Most of us here don't want to discourage that investment.


Oh no, no perish the thought! If we can just take away enough money off the top and then add further penalties for paying market value for players everything will work out just fine.

You don't want to discourage investment, you just want to discourage the Yankees' investment.

Say, I noticed you said "Most of us here don't want to discourage that investment" so who are the heretics among your Budshovik hordes? Who seeks to discourage all teams from "investing in the team to a greater extent than other owners cared to do"?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAngell: The Best
(19 - 7:29am, Oct 31)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4786 - 7:22am, Oct 31)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogThe Players' Tribune: Jeter: The Clean Up
(3 - 6:56am, Oct 31)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(11 - 6:56am, Oct 31)
Last: Darren

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(631 - 6:39am, Oct 31)
Last: Norcan

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Discussion
(10 - 6:15am, Oct 31)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogSend Alex Gordon! | FiveThirtyEight
(83 - 4:02am, Oct 31)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogNo, Alex Gordon wouldn't have scored an inside the park home run
(135 - 3:35am, Oct 31)
Last: baxter

NewsblogNewest Hall of Fame Candidates Announced
(52 - 2:35am, Oct 31)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1021 - 1:53am, Oct 31)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(108 - 1:49am, Oct 31)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogThings we learned from the 2014 playoffs
(11 - 12:17am, Oct 31)
Last: bobm

NewsblogMadison Bumgarner, World Series legend - McCovey Chronicles
(103 - 12:15am, Oct 31)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogFielding Bible
(2 - 11:24pm, Oct 30)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(544 - 11:11pm, Oct 30)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

Page rendered in 0.5721 seconds
52 querie(s) executed