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

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Mets & deGrom agree on 5 year, $137.5m extension

The Mets agreed to an extension with Cy Young Award winner Jacob deGrom on Tuesday morning that will be for five years and $137.5 million, The Post confirmed. The deal, pending a physical, was completed two days before deGrom was planning to shut down talks once the regular season starts Thursday. DeGrom will have a full no-trade clause and can opt out of the deal in 2022, while the contract finishes in 2023.

Sounds like this buys out both arb years, and at least 2 years of free agency.  deGrom can’t hit the open market until his age 34 season if he takes his opt out.

The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: March 26, 2019 at 09:03 AM | 44 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: degrom, degrominating, mets, new york mets

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. JJ1986 Posted: March 26, 2019 at 09:21 AM (#5825308)
Awesome.
   2. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: March 26, 2019 at 09:25 AM (#5825310)
Also has a 6th year team option, which I didn't realize when I submitted.
   3. formerly dp Posted: March 26, 2019 at 09:25 AM (#5825311)
This is a bfd for the org--and it *shouldn't* keep them from doing other things, but this being the Mets, it probably will. Yoenis and his anchor of a $30M salary comes off the books after 2020...
   4. TDF, trained monkey Posted: March 26, 2019 at 09:26 AM (#5825312)
If it's 5 years thru '23, it's a new contract not an extension - unless it's really a 4/$120 extension.

Man I hate how these headlines are written. First Trout (who signed for 10/$360, not 12/$430) now this.
   5. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: March 26, 2019 at 09:30 AM (#5825317)
This changes up his contract this year, I think, converting some base salary to signing bonus and changing the luxury tax implications.
   6. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 26, 2019 at 09:31 AM (#5825318)
If it's 5 years thru '23, it's a new contract not an extension - unless it's really a 4/$120 extension.

Correct. He still has the $17M arb contract they agreed to for this year. They added 4/120.
   7. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2019 at 09:36 AM (#5825322)
Great news.
   8. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2019 at 09:39 AM (#5825323)
They should tell Noah that if not for that flight delay, this never would have happened.
   9. jmurph Posted: March 26, 2019 at 09:55 AM (#5825331)
Man I hate how these headlines are written. First Trout (who signed for 10/$360, not 12/$430) now this.

Totally agree, and this feels like a new phenomenon, like a bunch of former NFL writers (where entirely BS numbers are announced all the time) have moved to the MLB beat.
   10. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: March 26, 2019 at 10:24 AM (#5825344)
From MLBTR:

Earlier this year, deGrom agreed to a $17MM arbitration contract for the 2019 season. That effectively remains in place, though it is now restructured as a $10MM signing bonus and $7MM salary, Joel Sherman of the New York Post reports on Twitter. What would have been deGrom’s final arbitration season, 2020, will be locked in at $23MM. He’ll then earn $33.5MM in each of the next two seasons and $30.5MM in 2023 — if he does not first opt out. The option-year value is $32.5MM, ESPN.com’s Jeff Passan tweets.
   11. JRVJ Posted: March 26, 2019 at 10:48 AM (#5825358)
This streak of extensions for superstars has made interpreting this off-season much more complicated than before.

It's not that teams are unwilling to pay players. It's that they seem unwilling to pay players that aren't superstars or aren't homegrown.

Don't know if this will do much for the mid-tier, but I strongly think that the next CBA has to do away with FA compensation (not what teams GET if they lose a FA, but what teams LOSE if they sign a FA... that last part has to go).
   12. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 26, 2019 at 10:56 AM (#5825364)
Don't know if this will do much for the mid-tier, but I strongly think that the next CBA has to do away with FA compensation (not what teams GET if they lose a FA, but what teams LOSE if they sign a FA... that last part has to go).

I'd love to see a CBA that 1) raises the minimum salary to $1M, 2) shortens the reserve clause period by a year, with a max age, and 3) bans contracts over 3 years.

Would the owners be willing to give early FA in exchange for eliminating long-term deals? I think they should be.
   13. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 26, 2019 at 11:22 AM (#5825387)
I'd love to see a CBA that 1) raises the minimum salary to $1M,
Clearly getting more money to players early in their career is a rational solution, but I would want to see data on how that raise would ripple through - presumably pushing up arbitration awards as well as all subsequent contracts within what, at least one standard deviation of the minimum? Then I would want to see what that would mean for the competitiveness of small-market teams. The only rebuttal I've seen to this so far has been along the lines of "Bah - even the smallest markets are actually wildly profitable." I'm skeptical of this because it generally comes from highly anti-owner sources.
   14. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: March 26, 2019 at 11:48 AM (#5825405)
Don't know if this will do much for the mid-tier, but I strongly think that the next CBA has to do away with FA compensation (not what teams GET if they lose a FA, but what teams LOSE if they sign a FA... that last part has to go).


I think that makes sense, I'd like to see the team losing the FA get a compensation pick, but the team getting the FA not losing their own pick.
   15. Dr. Vaux Posted: March 26, 2019 at 11:50 AM (#5825407)
It's that they seem unwilling to pay players that aren't superstars or aren't homegrown.


The last part of that suggests a question that hadn't occurred to me: Is it possible that it could hurt ownership in a collusion case that money has been offered to homegrown players that hasn't been offered to free-agents? The claim would be that it's as much an effort to discourage free-agency as it is to avoid spending money. That would be silly, because it isn't the same players being offered the money, and they'd be being offered more than these contracts if they were free-agents. But it could be on the surface reminiscent, to someone not paying close attention and who doesn't really understand baseball, of the 1986-87 collusion quotes about "so-and-so is such-and-such team's player."
   16. JRVJ Posted: March 26, 2019 at 12:18 PM (#5825414)
12, my proposal is one that I haven't seen mentioned and that is probably not so big a deal that the owners would balk.

As to yours, I agree with 1 (I think there's a decent chance this would be accepted), I agree with 2 (but I don't the owners would agree) and I'm not sure that I understand the point of 3 (if I remember Charles Finley's old dictum, that would actually increase the number of FAs every off-season, and probably decrease what they get each off-season).
   17. JRVJ Posted: March 26, 2019 at 12:41 PM (#5825427)
15, I really don't know.

Yesterday I read a Ringer posted exchange between Ben Lindberg and Michael Baumann in which Ben argues that extensions have on the upswing recently… but not as much when you look back 10 years ago.

What IS on the upswing is the amount of dollars being spent on these extensions, which is the most since 2013-2014 (and the amount spent on players with more than 6 years of service is the biggest in the last 10 years, trailing only 2012-2013).

It's all very interesting, but I'm not sure that I can draw conclusions from this.
   18. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 26, 2019 at 12:47 PM (#5825430)
12, my proposal is one that I haven't seen mentioned and that is probably not so big a deal that the owners would balk.

As to yours, I agree with 1 (I think there's a decent chance this would be accepted), I agree with 2 (but I don't the owners would agree) and I'm not sure that I understand the point of 3 (if I remember Charles Finley's old dictum, that would actually increase the number of FAs every off-season, and probably decrease what they get each off-season).


Pt. 3), the cap on contract years, is the concession to the owners to get 1) and 2). The goal is to get more players to FA, earlier, and get them more fairly paid than under the reserve clause. The give up is protecting the owners from the massive dud contracts a la Pujols.
   19. JRVJ Posted: March 26, 2019 at 01:29 PM (#5825460)
18, I doubt that players would push for that.

Ultimately, many, many players LIKE being in one place for their career (or most of their career). Being precluded from having a contract of more than 3 years at a time complicates that (yes, a player could sign a new extension after each 3 year contract ends, but the balance power could have shifted significantly between a team and a player in 3 years…, depending on the age of the player).

I could be misconstruing the history, but I always understood that the point of FA was twofold: (a) To give players a chance to get more money than in their current team, AND (b)To give players a chance to play where THEY want to play.

Your proposal would probably help in re: (a) (I say probably, because I have my doubts about how that many FAs out there would play out), but it would complicate (b) significantly, especially for players no longer in their 20s.
   20. Karl from NY Posted: March 26, 2019 at 03:23 PM (#5825519)
I think that makes sense, I'd like to see the team losing the FA get a compensation pick, but the team getting the FA not losing their own pick.

The problem with this proposal: teams could intentionally lose FAs to each other and then trade them back, thus keeping the same players and manufacturing extra picks.
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 26, 2019 at 03:29 PM (#5825521)
I could be misconstruing the history, but I always understood that the point of FA was twofold: (a) To give players a chance to get more money than in their current team, AND (b)To give players a chance to play where THEY want to play.

Your proposal would probably help in re: (a) (I say probably, because I have my doubts about how that many FAs out there would play out), but it would complicate (b) significantly, especially for players no longer in their 20s.


How many guys actually finish out their LTC with the original team? If you want to stay in one place you probably can, just take a little less than your market price.
   22. JRVJ Posted: March 26, 2019 at 03:41 PM (#5825527)
20, that assumes that teams gave a QO to a player, that player doesn't accept the QO AND the player is signed by another team prior to next year's draft.

And you know what ? Dallas Keuchel and Craig Kimbrel say hi.
   23. JRVJ Posted: March 26, 2019 at 03:44 PM (#5825529)
21, No, it's not just a question of staying with your original team (i.e., Mike Trout).

It's a question of playing where you want to live and play (e.g., Manny Machado, Bryce Harper).
   24. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: March 26, 2019 at 04:06 PM (#5825540)
I don't think that limiting contract length is as team-friendly as snapper does. Pujols' contract runs through age 41. On the day it was signed everyone knew that Pujols wasn't going to provide any value to the Angels at age 41. His 2021 salary is just deferred compensation for 2012. If he couldn't sign a contract for >3 years after 2011, he just would have signed a contract with the Angels without that deferred money and without the Angels getting a discount for buying risk. He'd be paid considerably more per year for three years, instead of $25m a year for ten. Not sure that that's much of a win for the Angels, and of course they also lose the possibility that he'll age like Hank Aaron.

Look at it this way: years of control is a benefit for the team. They know that it's very unlikely that a player will be valuable after age X, so they don't pay for anything after age X - they just defer the money from earlier years. Keeping him on the contract after that age is the player doing a solid for the team. Players are going to get paid for their productive years regardless, so it's to a teams advantage to get extra control for that same money. (And if it turns out that the player really is worthless, as expected, they can always release them like the Angels should do with Pujols.)
   25. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 26, 2019 at 04:20 PM (#5825547)
Look at it this way: years of control is a benefit for the team. They know that it's very unlikely that a player will be valuable after age X, so they don't pay for anything after age X - they just defer the money from earlier years. Keeping him on the contract after that age is the player doing a solid for the team. Players are going to get paid for their productive years regardless, so it's to a teams advantage to get extra control for that same money. (And if it turns out that the player really is worthless, as expected, they can always release them like the Angels should do with Pujols.)
Two major in-practice problems with this way of looking at it: 1) The player is still taking up major payroll space every year on the back end of the long-term contract. Teams don't treat this as essentially a holdover cost from previous years - they treat it as a current-year cost that impedes their flexibility. And 2) as you allude to with Pujols, a big contract almost always gets a declining/useless player way more playing time than he should get, often to the point that he's actively hurting the team.
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 26, 2019 at 04:31 PM (#5825550)
It's a question of playing where you want to live and play (e.g., Manny Machado, Bryce Harper).

But they're not. They're playing for the team that offered the most money. They wanted to play in some combination of NY/CHI?LA.
   27. Karl from NY Posted: March 26, 2019 at 04:34 PM (#5825554)
release them like the Angels should do with Pujols

Should they? He's still above replacement level, even if by less than one win per year. And he undoubtedly still has marketing value.
   28. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 26, 2019 at 04:38 PM (#5825559)
Should they? He's still above replacement level, even if by less than one win per year. And he undoubtedly still has marketing value.

His last 3 years have totaled -0.1 WAR, and at 39 he ain't getting better. Cut him.
   29. JRVJ Posted: March 26, 2019 at 04:51 PM (#5825564)
But they're not. They're playing for the team that offered the most money. They wanted to play in some combination of NY/CHI?LA.


At least as pertains Harper, that's factually wrong.

Harper has explained that the Dodgers and the Giants were both willing to give him more money, but for shorter time-frames.

It was Harper who preferred living in Philadelphia, for less money but a longer time frame.
   30. Nasty Nate Posted: March 26, 2019 at 04:56 PM (#5825566)
At least as pertains Harper, that's factually wrong.

Harper has explained that the Dodgers and the Giants were both willing to give him more money, but for shorter time-frames.

It was Harper who preferred living in Philadelphia, for less money but a longer time frame.
Wasn't Philadelphia's offer the highest, in terms of total guaranteed money?
   31. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 26, 2019 at 05:04 PM (#5825571)
Wasn't Philadelphia's offer the highest, in terms of total guaranteed money?

Yes. LA offered a higher AAV, which is not the same as more money. The Dodger offer was alleged to be something like 4/170, the Giants 12/310. He got 13/330.

Net, the Phillie offer is even higher b/c of CA income tax rates. CA top rate is 13.3%, PA is 3.07%. A 10% difference on half his income is a lot. His road games will also be more tax friendly given 3 NL West teams are in CA.
   32. Swoboda is freedom Posted: March 26, 2019 at 05:41 PM (#5825578)
Net, the Phillie offer is even higher b/c of CA income tax rates. CA top rate is 13.3%, PA is 3.07%. A 10% difference on half his income is a lot. His road games will also be more tax friendly given 3 NL West teams are in CA.


Philly has a city tax 3.88% for residents, 3.45% for non residents.
   33. JRVJ Posted: March 26, 2019 at 06:20 PM (#5825583)
30, as above, the Dodgers and Giants were willing to give him more money but for shorter time-frames.

The difference between the Giants and Phillies is not that large (notwithstanding local taxes), but the difference between the Dodgers and Phillies was very large.

Let's say that Harper signed with the Dodgers for 4/170 and was a FA again the end of 2022. Obviously, he could have crashed and burned and no longer been a top tier player. But if Harper was still a superstar or an elite player at the end of 2022, the chances of him getting 170MM or more (in February 2019 dollars) from 2023 through 2032 were very high.


And again, Harper expressly said that he did not want to move from town to town. Check this story and these quotes:

Athletic story from March 3rd.:

“I didn’t want to be part of two organizations or anything like that, and that just didn’t work out for me. … Nobody in the next 13 years is gonna talk about, ‘Oh, he’s going to the Yankees, he’s going here, he’s going there.’ I mean, at 39, hopefully I can prolong my career, that would be great. But for me, it’s about being somewhere for a long period of time, making my family, digging my roots, for the good, for the bad.”


The Harpers, who married in December 2016, want their children to have stability and be involved in the city, too. Picking up and starting over somewhere else every few years was not appealing.


“Thirteen years is a very long time and thank goodness they trust him to perform for that long,” Kayla Harper said. “I don’t have any doubts that he will. We wanted roots. We wanted to be involved in the community and make it really meaningful and not just bounce around.”

   34. Walt Davis Posted: March 26, 2019 at 06:25 PM (#5825584)
Two major in-practice problems with this way of looking at it: 1) The player is still taking up major payroll space every year on the back end of the long-term contract. Teams don't treat this as essentially a holdover cost from previous years - they treat it as a current-year cost that impedes their flexibility. And 2) as you allude to with Pujols, a big contract almost always gets a declining/useless player way more playing time than he should get, often to the point that he's actively hurting the team.

There is no evidence that teams view this as a burden (#1). They know exactly what they're doing with these long-term contracts. And the option is to place an even bigger burden on their short-term payroll flexibility while (for those that ignore the lux tax threshold) costing them more in lux tax. You can pay a player something like 5/$150 or you can pay them 7/$160. So you can have about $7 M less per year worth of players early -- the competitive window -- or you can have $23 M (in inflated dollars) for two years at the end (about $33 M in today's dollars).

As to #2 -- that's their fault for giving the guy undeserved playing time. When it's undeserved of course. The only thing to care about at that point is whether they are helping/hurting on the field.

But it's probably pretty rare they are really getting undeserved playing time. The myth that AAA is filled with decent players really needs to stop. What I know is that Melky, Liriano, Hunter Pence, Carlos Gonzalez and heaps of other collapsed vets are still on 25-man rosters when nobody had any salary commitment to them whatsoever.
   35. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 26, 2019 at 06:49 PM (#5825586)
There is no evidence that teams view this as a burden (#1). They know exactly what they're doing with these long-term contracts. And the option is to place an even bigger burden on their short-term payroll flexibility while (for those that ignore the lux tax threshold) costing them more in lux tax. You can pay a player something like 5/$150 or you can pay them 7/$160. So you can have about $7 M less per year worth of players early -- the competitive window -- or you can have $23 M (in inflated dollars) for two years at the end (about $33 M in today's dollars).
Sure. But none of that rebuts the reality that, when it comes time for the back end of the contract, teams do treat it just like any other payroll obligation and act accordingly. And that's a problem, analytically, with just shrugging it off as deferred money.

As to #2 -- that's their fault for giving the guy undeserved playing time. When it's undeserved of course. The only thing to care about at that point is whether they are helping/hurting on the field.
Similarly, that doesn't change the fact that it's a negative externality that "eh, it's just deferred money" doesn't account for.

But it's probably pretty rare they are really getting undeserved playing time.The myth that AAA is filled with decent players really needs to stop. What I know is that Melky, Liriano, Hunter Pence, Carlos Gonzalez and heaps of other collapsed vets are still on 25-man rosters when nobody had any salary commitment to them whatsoever.
Do you think it will just be coincidence when the aforementioned players now get a lot less playing time than they did when teams had more money committed? I dunno, you could be right that it's rare, but I'd like to see some more concrete data.
   36. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2019 at 07:21 PM (#5825592)
But none of that rebuts the reality that, when it comes time for the back end of the contract, teams do treat it just like any other payroll obligation and act accordingly.

Strongly agree with Elroy here.
   37. bobm Posted: March 26, 2019 at 09:42 PM (#5825620)
How many guys actually finish out their LTC with the original team? If you want to stay in one place you probably can, just take a little less than your market price.

What player signs a LTC (i.e., longer than 5 years) without at least his 10-and-5 rights vesting during the LTC? ISTM the Marlins are the rare team that signs players to 10+ year long contracts and then trades there player early in the term, e.g., Stanton, Reyes.
   38. Walt Davis Posted: March 27, 2019 at 05:07 PM (#5825880)
Sure. But none of that rebuts the reality that, when it comes time for the back end of the contract, teams do treat it just like any other payroll obligation and act accordingly. And that's a problem, analytically, with just shrugging it off as deferred money.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Of course it's a payroll obligation. It's a payroll obligation that compensates for a time when the player was a payroll bonanza. You can't have your cake and eat it too and everybody knows this when the contract is signed.

So what's your point -- that the Phillies only have 10 years to plan for the (nearly) inevitable time when Harper will be a waste of money? That the Angels would rather not still be paying Pujols while also not having paid him more in the past?

It's teams choosing not to go down the short, high AAV contract road yet you seem to think that neither the teams nor agents nor analysts are treating this rationally ... with the implication that this is somehow to the team's detriment.

Similarly, that doesn't change the fact that it's a negative externality that "eh, it's just deferred money" doesn't account for.

That is exactly what "eh, it's deferred money" accounts for.
   39. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 27, 2019 at 05:16 PM (#5825884)
I'm saying that the "eh, it's deferred money" viewpoint ignores important aspects of how teams actually behave, and that those behavioral aspects make the huge long term deals more problematic for teams than the viewpoint acknowledges. Now, of course the rebuttal is, well, teams should just adopt the deferred-money viewpoint and change their behavior accordingly - but that doesn't make the behaviors any less real.
   40. PreservedFish Posted: March 27, 2019 at 05:30 PM (#5825894)
You can't have your cake and eat it too and everybody knows this when the contract is signed.


They can certainly have their cake and eat it too.

Owner, 2018, to today's GM: "Those extra years count against this year's payroll. We know he'll be garbage in 2026."
Owner, 2026, to tomorrow's GM: "Yes, of course he counts against the payroll, dumbass. No, we didn't 'already pay for him.' He still gets checks, right?"
   41. . Posted: March 27, 2019 at 05:41 PM (#5825897)
I'm saying that the "eh, it's deferred money" viewpoint ignores important aspects of how teams actually behave,


Of course it does, as is self-evident. It's just a "viewpoint" that has arisen because a bunch of people just absolutely positively must have a "viewpoint" on every last thing lest, I don't know, their Cheerios get soggy or something.

No one actually thinks or acts as if they think they money being paid to 39-year-old washed-ups is somehow compensation for the same employee's work when the employee was 33. There was no time in which anyone acts as if the performance they paid good money for was some kind of "bonanza" for which they owe money later. No one thinks or acts that way.

Now, what people do do is do stupid, overly optimistic animal spiritish things sometimes, and that's the category many of these long-term baseball contracts fall into. Which is essentially the same reason we see things like boom-and-bust in the economy at large, and bubbles in things like stocks and office buildings.(*) There's nothing really rational going on there -- thus the term "animal spirits" -- and there's no reason to pretend there is. These are rich, competitive people bidding on these scarce free agents and there's no reason for a bunch of non-rich, non-competitive people to make up a bunch of "rational" reasons for what they're doing that they've never even considered themselves, and clearly don't think.

(*) Or the reason people drink and kind of pretend or don't even consider, even though they know better, that they're going to have a bad hangover the next day.
   42. Dog on the sidewalk has an ugly bracelet Posted: March 27, 2019 at 07:14 PM (#5825919)
 
It's just a "viewpoint" that has arisen because a bunch of people just absolutely positively must have a "viewpoint" on every last thing lest, I don't know, their Cheerios get soggy or something

Thanks for the giggle. You do realize that you come to this site on a near-daily basis to proclaim your universally strong, intractable opinions on whatever is being discussed, to a group of people who have collectively and frequently expressed a total lack of interest or respect for anything you have to say, right? (Please note that that question was rhetorical, as I have no doubt that if you had the self-awareness to realize it, you'd still never acknowledge it)

As much as I wish you'd just go away, I admit I'd miss the unintentional comedy you so often provide.
   43. SoSH U at work Posted: March 27, 2019 at 07:23 PM (#5825922)
You can't have your cake and eat it too


I've always wondered why anyone would want a cake if he couldn't also eat it.
   44. Dog on the sidewalk has an ugly bracelet Posted: March 27, 2019 at 07:35 PM (#5825923)
I always pictured it as self-replenishing cake.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogWhitewash: Rob Manfred says he doesn’t think sign stealing extends beyond the Astros
(26 - 10:09pm, Nov 20)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread, Start of the 2019-2020 Season
(961 - 10:07pm, Nov 20)
Last: nick swisher hygiene

NewsblogBobby Abreu has a better Hall of Fame case than you think
(47 - 10:05pm, Nov 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPirates pitcher Felipe Vazquez faces 21 new child sex-related charges
(34 - 9:53pm, Nov 20)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

Sox TherapyGumbo Limbo, Mookie Betts and “Not My Money”
(63 - 9:47pm, Nov 20)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogRyan Thibs’ Hall of Fame Tracker
(125 - 9:34pm, Nov 20)
Last: bobm

Gonfalon CubsRegrets
(115 - 8:41pm, Nov 20)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogRob Manfred’s plan to destroy minor league baseball
(126 - 8:18pm, Nov 20)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT- Soccer Thread- October 2019
(527 - 7:24pm, Nov 20)
Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy

NewsblogFormer NBA executive wants to bring MLB to Orlando
(12 - 7:09pm, Nov 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogBrewers returning to ball-in-glove logo for 2020, unveil new uniform designs for 50th anniversary ce
(3 - 7:03pm, Nov 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogGerardo Parra Signs With Japan’s Yomiuri Giants
(12 - 6:39pm, Nov 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogMLB isn’t confident it can produce a consistent ball, leaving GMs to adapt
(9 - 6:19pm, Nov 20)
Last: Zach

NewsblogTwins’ Max Kepler retraces steps in trip back to Germany
(1 - 5:58pm, Nov 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogColorado School of Mines Talk – Bauer Outage
(20 - 5:12pm, Nov 20)
Last: Der-K: at 10% emotional investment

Page rendered in 0.4653 seconds
46 querie(s) executed