Machado- Padres 10 years 300M

hammer1 · February 19, 2019 11:34AM

Manny Machado has agreed to the biggest free-agent contract in American sports history -- a 10-year, $300 million deal with the San Diego Padres, league sources told ESPN's Jeff Passan on Tuesday.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/26031051/manny-machado-san-diego-padres-reach-deal

1951WheatiesPremium · February 19, 2019 11:54AM

.285, 25 HR and no hustle

Wow

bronco2078 · February 19, 2019 12:10PM

this is so stupid no way is a 10 year deal a good idea for a team.

Has there been an 8 year deal that didn't suck? What was manny ramirez a 7 year , that wasn't awful for the team I guess but 10 years ?

perkdog · February 19, 2019 12:35PM

Completely stupid. Either way it won’t be long before we see the first Billion Dollar contract in MLB.

stevek · February 19, 2019 1:11PM

https://youtu.be/TL3oFeHjRCg

MCMLVTopps · February 19, 2019 2:26PM

Total insanity...he's a dirty player and won't hustle. His ego will become so inflated, I will predict he'll pull some kind of antics, thinking he can get away with anything. Shades of Manny "I'm untouchable" Ramirez. The morons in the Padres hq will rue the day they said "sign here por favor".

This eclipses the boned headed deal the Red Sox made with Fatty Sandoval, Dicek and Hanram, rolled into one.

Strap in Padres fans, your beer, etc just went up, up, up.

Justacommeman · February 19, 2019 3:21PM

dumb.

m

Coinstartled · February 19, 2019 3:50PM

$150,000 per hit. Assuming that he hits 200 a year for the ten years.

galaxy27 · February 19, 2019 4:56PM

espn.com/video/clip?id=26032556

ahopkins · February 19, 2019 5:05PM

Good. That means Philly didn't get him.

DIMEMAN · February 19, 2019 5:14PM

WOW...…..were they not watching the World Series last year!! He has to be the MOST overpaid player EVER!!

larryallen73 · February 19, 2019 7:12PM

I am glad my Dodgers didn't do that deal.

orioles93 · February 19, 2019 8:58PM

I must be the only person here who likes the deal. Manny gets a lot of money, and the padres get a superstar to build around once their great farm system comes to the mlb over the next few seasons. Win for each party. I watched almost every orioles game since Manny came up. The guy can rake and his defense is near the top of the league. In my view, his negatives are overblown a bit. I watched a lot of manny over the years and he only ever caused issues on a handful of occasions and most of those were earlier in his career. His hustle issues last year were rather new, I don’t recall that happening to much before last season. He’s going to hit 30 plus homers, 30 plus doubles, drive in 90 plus rbi and hit close to .290+. Along with playing gold glove defense at either short or third. And he’s only 26. Most of the guys who have gotten huge deals were older. Manny will be 36 when this deal is up. That really isn’t that bad.

stevek · February 19, 2019 10:14PM

I've always wondered what the Yankees would have had to pay Babe Ruth in today's game?

Perhaps 25% of New York City and all the stock in Con Edison.

daltex · February 19, 2019 11:07PM

@orioles93 said:
I must be the only person here who likes the deal. Manny gets a lot of money, and the padres get a superstar to build around once their great farm system comes to the mlb over the next few seasons. Win for each party. I watched almost every orioles game since Manny came up. The guy can rake and his defense is near the top of the league. In my view, his negatives are overblown a bit. I watched a lot of manny over the years and he only ever caused issues on a handful of occasions and most of those were earlier in his career. His hustle issues last year were rather new, I don’t recall that happening to much before last season. He’s going to hit 30 plus homers, 30 plus doubles, drive in 90 plus rbi and hit close to .290+. Along with playing gold glove defense at either short or third. And he’s only 26. Most of the guys who have gotten huge deals were older. Manny will be 36 when this deal is up. That really isn’t that bad.

I must have missed the gold glove defense at short. I can just hope that he isn't as selfish as probably the two most revered shortstops in history and refuses to move to third when there are (much) better defensive options at short. BTW, I think it is at the very least a reasonable signing and perhaps a very good one.

keets · February 20, 2019 5:13AM

four points:
1). his prior accomplishments simply don't seem to make this reasonable.
2). the per year money could have been better used to help the Padres.
3). I see no way that he will be with the Team for the duration of the contract.
4). I feel sad for the fans who follow the Padres.

DIMEMAN · February 20, 2019 6:01AM

@stevek said:
I've always wondered what the Yankees would have had to pay Babe Ruth in today's game?

Perhaps 25% of New York City and all the stock in Con Edison.

Ruth couldn't play in today's game.

stevek · February 20, 2019 6:49AM

@DIMEMAN said:

@stevek said:
I've always wondered what the Yankees would have had to pay Babe Ruth in today's game?

Perhaps 25% of New York City and all the stock in Con Edison.

Ruth couldn't play in today's game.

Well technically that's true because he's been dead since 1948. 💀

pitboss · February 20, 2019 8:56AM

I was just a kid when Babe died and was listening to I believe it was *our little snooks"on the radio, Some kids program at the time.
when they broke in with the announcement.

But I agree that I am glad he is out of the AL. He is an idiot!

DIMEMAN · February 20, 2019 10:39AM

@stevek said:

@DIMEMAN said:

@stevek said:
I've always wondered what the Yankees would have had to pay Babe Ruth in today's game?

Perhaps 25% of New York City and all the stock in Con Edison.

Ruth couldn't play in today's game.

Well technically that's true because he's been dead since 1948. 💀

Steve...Steve...Steve.....you know exactly what I meant.

Skin2 · February 20, 2019 10:53AM

I think Machado is going to miss that inviting short left field porch in Camden.

For his career he averaged 37 home runs per 162 games at home.
For his career he averaged 23 home runs per 162 games on the road.

Now he is going to one of the absolute worst hitters parks in the league.

Counting on 35 plus home runs is going to be a very tall order.

JoeBanzai · February 20, 2019 10:58AM

He doesn't walk enough.

bronco2078 · February 20, 2019 1:05PM

@JoeBanzai said:
He doesn't walk enough.

he should get a dog

JoeBanzai · February 20, 2019 2:01PM

You're the BEST!

daltex · February 20, 2019 2:42PM

@pitboss said:
I was just a kid when Babe died and was listening to I believe it was *our little snooks"on the radio, Some kids program at the time.
when they broke in with the announcement.

But I agree that I am glad he is out of the AL. He is an idiot!

Baby Snooks.

JRR300 · February 20, 2019 3:01PM

Really surprising to read this thread. I know all the crap about the lack of hustle and attitude, but the guy is in his prime and a bona fide star coming into his prime. If you have a problem with a 10 year deal, then you would never sign one of these elite players because that's what it takes. It's much better than giving a guy who's 30 a ten year deal. Neither Machado or Harper signed early because they wanted to push the market. Harper was always going to sign last because that's what Boras' clients do! His clients always wait and he negotiates by using the prior contract for leverage.

Here's my issue. I know the union puts pressure to sign the biggest deals, no matter what team. The Padres do have a team with a lot of young talent and could be very good in a few years. But they don't draw fans to the park, they play in obscurity in San Diego and traditionally they are not a good team. Wouldn't your competitive nature tell you that you want to have a real chance to consistently win games and compete for the playoffs.

bronco2078 · February 20, 2019 5:32PM

@JRR300 said:
Really surprising to read this thread. I know all the crap about the lack of hustle and attitude, but the guy is in his prime and a bona fide star coming into his prime. If you have a problem with a 10 year deal, then you would never sign one of these elite players because that's what it takes. It's much better than giving a guy who's 30 a ten year deal. Neither Machado or Harper signed early because they wanted to push the market. Harper was always going to sign last because that's what Boras' clients do! His clients always wait and he negotiates by using the prior contract for leverage.

Here's my issue. I know the union puts pressure to sign the biggest deals, no matter what team. The Padres do have a team with a lot of young talent and could be very good in a few years. But they don't draw fans to the park, they play in obscurity in San Diego and traditionally they are not a good team. Wouldn't your competitive nature tell you that you want to have a real chance to consistently win games and compete for the playoffs.

no it tells me to move the team , 300 million dollars is a disaster . Baseball is dying , its time to tighten belts not break the bank

JRR300 · February 20, 2019 7:05PM

@bronco2078 said:

no it tells me to move the team , 300 million dollars is a disaster . Baseball is dying , its time to tighten belts not break the bank

Sorry Bronco, you must be reading something different than I am. The teams themselves are experiencing growth in revenues and have become less and less dependent on attendance. As media contracts continue to grow, the revenue streams increase so that teams can spend more of that money on players. Would you prefer to give a 10 year contract to a 26 year old approaching the prime years of his career or to a 30+ year old at the tail end of his prime with his lesser years ahead of him. It's not our money, so do we really care how much the players are paid. IMO, there are no entertainers who are worth the kind of money they make. Tv stars getting over $1 mil per episode, $15 mil per film etc etc etc. Don't forget, it's all about the entertainment value.
At least now, the Padres have a guy worth going to see night in and night out. And let me put out there that in no way am I a Machado fan, but you must recognize the talent.

bronco2078 · February 20, 2019 7:10PM

MLB doesn't do streaming right or anything internet for that matter . They don't even let you post clips . So if you saw a great play and wanted to tell people here they don't allow that and could force you to take it down. Every other sport allows it.

Media contracts wont grow, how can they? ESPN is dead , shedding hundreds of thousands of viewers every month. Its all peaked

dallasactuary · February 20, 2019 7:36PM

@Skin2 said:
I think Machado is going to miss that inviting short left field porch in Camden.

For his career he averaged 37 home runs per 162 games at home.
For his career he averaged 23 home runs per 162 games on the road.

Now he is going to one of the absolute worst hitters parks in the league.

Counting on 35 plus home runs is going to be a very tall order.

I don't think the Padres ought to be counting on 25, let alone 35. Machado's career OPS (not "+", just straight OPS) on the road is .761. A sample of folks with a career OPS within a few points of that include Darrell Porter, Jim Northrup and Tom Brunansky. If it turns out Machado is a better hitter than those guys once he leaves Baltimore then the Padres will have gotten very lucky. If he turns out to be worth 30 million a year it will only be because we get inflation similar to Venezuela's.

So far in his career, Machado has been in the top 10 in OPS+ a single time (last year, 8th place) and in the top 10 in WPA zero times (zero!). He's a good hitter, and is on a trajectory to be very good. If the word "great" entered the mind of anyone in the Padres organization, and for that kind of money presumably it did, then I just pray they don't ever get hired by the Cardinals.

The winners in this deal are Machado, who gets paid twice or more what he's worth, and Mike Trout, whose agent can point to Machado's contract and legitimately claim that Trout is now worth 100 million a year.

stevek · February 20, 2019 8:46PM

I think there's a darker side to this as far as a deeper reason behind the signing.

We all know the politics of the state of California and what is going on there, so there's no need to get into that. Suffice to say that what California politicians are doing is going to require boatloads of money to even attempt to work their progressive agenda and solve that state's massive problems.

I'm not sure if California has legalized sports betting yet or not, but without a doubt they will. And what better way to do it than to have sports teams handle at least some, if not a lot of the betting action.

Even if MLB teams cannot legally take bets for some reason, there will certainly be sports betting available at the stadiums, similar if not exactly the way it is done at horse racetracks. And MLB owners somehow will definitely get a chunk of that revenue.

The Padres owner would like to field a winning team, to draw fans to bet on the games at the stadium. He may not even need a winning team to entice people to come to the stadium and gamble. But i think just like horse racing, people prefer to gamble on stakes horses versus cheap claiming horses. So if his team is a winner, I think most people would prefer gambling on a team such as that.

It's too early in the sports betting future to make crystal ball predictions as to how it will all play out, especially how each state will do it. However there is no question that it will benefit the revenue stream of MLB teams. And in my opinion, the owner of the Padres, by awarding this seemingly too large of a contract, is betting that eventually he will have so much money pouring into his bank account from gambling revenue, that 300 million dollars for a particular player may seem like a pittance.

Somebody in this thread or another thread stated that one day there might be a billion dollar ballplayer. If that ballplayer is capable of bringing fans to the ballpark to gamble, or gamble online or whatever on his team, and his team gets a piece of all that action, then I would agree with that scenario of a billion dollar ballplayer one day.

JoeBanzai · February 20, 2019 8:47PM

@JRR300 said:

@bronco2078 said:

no it tells me to move the team , 300 million dollars is a disaster . Baseball is dying , its time to tighten belts not break the bank

Sorry Bronco, you must be reading something different than I am. The teams themselves are experiencing growth in revenues and have become less and less dependent on attendance. As media contracts continue to grow, the revenue streams increase so that teams can spend more of that money on players. Would you prefer to give a 10 year contract to a 26 year old approaching the prime years of his career or to a 30+ year old at the tail end of his prime with his lesser years ahead of him. It's not our money, so do we really care how much the players are paid. IMO, there are no entertainers who are worth the kind of money they make. Tv stars getting over $1 mil per episode, $15 mil per film etc etc etc. Don't forget, it's all about the entertainment value.
At least now, the Padres have a guy worth going to see night in and night out. And let me put out there that in no way am I a Machado fan, but you must recognize the talent.

Wow. I guess it's just about the money. We no longer even care if anyone comes to the games!

Ridiculous contract, but most of them are. We (Minnesota Twins) just got done paying Joe Mauer a ton of money for several average years. Public paid for much of the new stadium and owners have one of the lowest payrolls in MLB.

I can't even listen to a game on local radio, much less see one on TV because it's all got to be paid extra for. Going to a game with your family is (for me) unaffordable, and the games last forever (so we can sell more commercial time?).

For me baseball is already dead. I follow the local team by checking on the results online, but really don't have the passion for ANY sport like I used to.

Glad the NFL is still on TV.

hammer1 · February 20, 2019 9:09PM

@stevek said:

I'm not sure if California has legalized sports betting yet or not, but without a doubt they will. And what better way to do it than to have sports teams handle at least some, if not a lot of the betting action.

Even if MLB teams cannot legally take bets for some reason, there will certainly be sports betting available at the stadiums, similar if not exactly the way it is done at horse racetracks. And MLB owners somehow will definitely get a chunk of that revenue.

The Padres owner would like to field a winning team, to draw fans to bet on the games at the stadium. He may not even need a winning team to entice people to come to the stadium and gamble. But i think just like horse racing, people prefer to gamble on stakes horses versus cheap claiming horses. So if his team is a winner, I think most people would prefer gambling on a team such as that.

It's too early in the sports betting future to make crystal ball predictions as to how it will all play out, especially how each state will do it. However there is no question that it will benefit the revenue stream of MLB teams. And in my opinion, the owner of the Padres, by awarding this seemingly too large of a contract, is betting that eventually he will have so much money pouring into his bank account from gambling revenue, that 300 million dollars for a particular player may seem like a pittance.

Somebody in this thread or another thread stated that one day there might be a billion dollar ballplayer. If that ballplayer is capable of bringing fans to the ballpark to gamble, or gamble online or whatever on his team, and his team gets a piece of all that action, then I would agree with that scenario of a billion dollar ballplayer one day.

California has not legalized sports betting.

When they do, I believe sports bets will initially only be allowed at Indian casinos, to be followed by bets being taken at horse racing tracks a few years later. Perhaps never as the Indian casino lobby in Cali is very strong.

California is never to be confused with New Jersey's level of accepting wagering..

I do not foresee stadium betting.

Teams will get a small cut of the profits, but not take wagers.

I hadn't thought about distribution of wagering profits to teams. At first blush my gut tells me an equal distribution, regardless of market size. Because a lousy team will be played as much as a powerhouse, thanks to the spread. Maybe more, as you know gamblers are always looking for the big hit (taking the dog outright). Not as many sharps, like you Steve, willing to grind it out,

Justacommeman · February 20, 2019 9:30PM

I can’t determine who is more out of their mind SteveK or Dimeman.

mark

stevek · February 20, 2019 9:57PM

@Justacommeman said:
I can’t determine who is more out of their mind SteveK or Dimeman.

mark

That's our pompous Mark, always quick with a compliment. 🤣

stevek · February 20, 2019 10:09PM

@hammer1 said:
@stevek said:

I'm not sure if California has legalized sports betting yet or not, but without a doubt they will. And what better way to do it than to have sports teams handle at least some, if not a lot of the betting action.

Even if MLB teams cannot legally take bets for some reason, there will certainly be sports betting available at the stadiums, similar if not exactly the way it is done at horse racetracks. And MLB owners somehow will definitely get a chunk of that revenue.

The Padres owner would like to field a winning team, to draw fans to bet on the games at the stadium. He may not even need a winning team to entice people to come to the stadium and gamble. But i think just like horse racing, people prefer to gamble on stakes horses versus cheap claiming horses. So if his team is a winner, I think most people would prefer gambling on a team such as that.

It's too early in the sports betting future to make crystal ball predictions as to how it will all play out, especially how each state will do it. However there is no question that it will benefit the revenue stream of MLB teams. And in my opinion, the owner of the Padres, by awarding this seemingly too large of a contract, is betting that eventually he will have so much money pouring into his bank account from gambling revenue, that 300 million dollars for a particular player may seem like a pittance.

Somebody in this thread or another thread stated that one day there might be a billion dollar ballplayer. If that ballplayer is capable of bringing fans to the ballpark to gamble, or gamble online or whatever on his team, and his team gets a piece of all that action, then I would agree with that scenario of a billion dollar ballplayer one day.

California has not legalized sports betting.

When they do, I believe sports bets will initially only be allowed at Indian casinos, to be followed by bets being taken at horse racing tracks a few years later. Perhaps never as the Indian casino lobby in Cali is very strong.

California is never to be confused with New Jersey's level of accepting wagering..

I do not foresee stadium betting.

Teams will get a small cut of the profits, but not take wagers.

I hadn't thought about distribution of wagering profits to teams. At first blush my gut tells me an equal distribution, regardless of market size. Because a lousy team will be played as much as a powerhouse, thanks to the spread. Maybe more, as you know gamblers are always looking for the big hit (taking the dog outright). Not as many sharps, like you Steve, willing to grind it out,

The only thing I "grind out" is wise investing. Sports betting is fool's folly.

But don't ask Mark quoted below, he'll tell ya he's the online gambling wizard. 🤣

"My son plays for a living live and on Internet. “Cash” payouts are a little slow but gets paid like clockwork until they aren’t I guess. Bitcoin payouts are fast.

I like high low Omaha. A lot of fishes. Just got to make sure you find them"

perkdog · February 21, 2019 3:39AM

LOL @SteveK! Honestly the part about “Sports betting allowed at the stadiums” was one of the funniest things I’ve read in awhile, the cherry on top was the California part 😂

stevek · February 21, 2019 5:58AM

@perkdog said:
LOL @SteveK! Honestly the part about “Sports betting allowed at the stadiums” was one of the funniest things I’ve read in awhile, the cherry on top was the California part 😂

Well Perkdog, I'm very pleased to have entertained you. That's been one of my goals in life to make you laugh, and now I can check that one off as having been achieved.

Click on the below article from Forbes, read it and you'll laugh some more. Don't be eating anything while you're reading it because you'll be laughing so hard, I wouldn't wish to see you choke on your food or anything like that.

As for "California", I doubt if you have any discernible clue as to what is going on there politically, and since political discussion is not allowed at CU, I shall't discuss it. So you can wallow in ignorance about what California is capable of doing, that's more blissful anyway, right?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattrybaltowski/2018/09/09/nfl-kickoff-2018-are-stadium-wi-fi-networks-ready-for-in-game-mobile-betting/#54ef70fe15c0

NFL Kickoff 2018: Are Stadium Wi-Fi Networks Ready For In-Game Mobile Betting?

When the New York Giants face the Jacksonville Jaguars on Sunday in a highly anticipated Week 1 opener, the NFL will enter a new frontier.

From the plush midfield seats below the Commissioners Club at MetLife Stadium, you can jump on your smartphone to wager on a surfeit of proposition bets. As you stand feet from Odell Beckham Jr. in pregame warmups, you can bet on whether the electrifying wideout will finish with more than 5.5 catches in his return from a serious leg injury. There are even 8-1 odds on whether Beckham or Jalen Ramsey will be whistled for a personal foul against each other at any point during the game, according to Sports Betting Dime.

While fans were able to bet on live action inside the stadium during the preseason, Sunday's game will mark the first time in-play, mobile wagering will be available within the confines of an NFL stadium for a regular-season contest.

On August 1, DraftKings Sportsbook became the first operator to launch a mobile betting app in New Jersey. Eight days later, the app was available for fans inside the Giants-Browns preseason game without any restrictions, ESPN reported.

Since then, several others have followed with apps of their own. Caesars Entertainment entered the fray by debuting a mobile app in New Jersey on Sept. 6, hours before the defending Super Bowl champion Eagles kicked off the season versus the Falcons. William Hill U.S., MGM Resorts International, FanDuel Sportsbook and SugarHouse sportsbook have also rolled out apps in the Garden State in time for the NFL season.

"Since New Jersey decided to allow mobile sports betting, we have been working diligently to create the most engaging and fun mobile platform which provides users with the ability to place bets on their favorite sporting events," said Mark Frissora, CEO and president of Caesars Entertainment.

stevek · February 21, 2019 6:07AM

BTW, there's already a sport that allows betting at the stadium (arena) on their particular game. It's been around for many years. It's called Jai alai and I've been to some Jai alai games in Florida a couple times.

I actually found it to be a dreadful bore, but it manages to stay in business so they must have some sort of a following. I guess certain gambling fanatics who follow it closely.

perkdog · February 21, 2019 6:35AM

Oops Sorry I offended you again Steve 🙄. I couldn’t care less about California so if you feel that’s ignorant then knock yourself out. My opinion regardless of whatever nonsense you feel is absolutely true is they will never have betting kiosks at stadiums. Dispute that all you want I don’t care. With risk of offending you again and the fact that I don’t care if I do I find it almost more comical that your even mentioning jai alai being at a stadium errr I mean “Arena” (Wink Wink), Just so you know there is a big big difference between an “Arena” and the events held there and MLB Parks.

stevek · February 21, 2019 8:07AM

@perkdog said:
Oops Sorry I offended you again Steve 🙄. I couldn’t care less about California so if you feel that’s ignorant then knock yourself out. My opinion regardless of whatever nonsense you feel is absolutely true is they will never have betting kiosks at stadiums. Dispute that all you want I don’t care. With risk of offending you again and the fact that I don’t care if I do I find it almost more comical that your even mentioning jai alai being at a stadium errr I mean “Arena” (Wink Wink), Just so you know there is a big big difference between an “Arena” and MLB Parks.

Yea, yea, yea...the usual Perkdog sports talk routine...offend, the target replies to the offense, and Perkdog then responds with a lame apology. 🙄

I don't mind the "offense" at all - that's what makes sports talk or any type of debate fun and entertaining, in my opinion. When ya hammer me...then I'll hammer ya back, if I feel like it.

Interesting about Jai alai the couple times i was there. There wasn't more than fifty people in the stands, and that was before the internet era. I'm not sure if they offered phone betting back then. I don't know how they stayed in business, but perhaps there wasn't that much overhead.

Now these Jai alai arenas offer poker, horse race simulcasting, slots, etc, and no doubt they will offer sports betting sometime in the future.

BTW - As well as allowing sports betting some day at MLB stadiums, without a doubt the teams will also offer poker, slots, etc...you name it, they'll have it.

perkdog · February 21, 2019 8:22AM

Steve that wasnt a lame apology, in fact it wasn’t an apology at all, it was tongue in cheek. We have been down this road before, I don’t try to offend you nor do I want to because I genuinely like you here at CU I just feel you get offended at me more than you do than anyone else which is fine but as I’ve said before I have a zero tolerance for you or anyone else and their shenanigans. That being said I straight up think your wrong that’s all, Sports betting is something that MLB doesn’t need or want they makee enough money gouging people that are foolish enough to buy $12 hot dogs and $15 Dixie cups of stale keg beer. You really think they want mike long lines at kiosks in stadiums of degenerate gamblers betting on the game? Or better yet the stands half empty because most fans are at poker tables? You think they are going to build wings to park poker tables and slot machines? It’s ridiculous thinking really

bronco2078 · February 21, 2019 8:37AM

jai lai used to be big in newport rhode island , anything that comes out of rhode island is corrupt , but its not as bad as florida obviously

pitboss · February 21, 2019 8:54AM

@daltex said:

@pitboss said:
I was just a kid when Babe died and was listening to I believe it was *our little snooks"on the radio, Some kids program at the time.
when they broke in with the announcement.

But I agree that I am glad he is out of the AL. He is an idiot!

Baby Snooks.

Yea, thats what the program was. It's good to know I was not the only one who knows about past old time radio programs. The only thing I remember about it is that was where I learned about Babe Ruth and I was only 9 years old.

stevek · February 21, 2019 9:56AM

@perkdog said:
Steve that wasnt a lame apology, in fact it wasn’t an apology at all, it was tongue in cheek. We have been down this road before, I don’t try to offend you nor do I want to because I genuinely like you here at CU I just feel you get offended at me more than you do than anyone else which is fine but as I’ve said before I have a zero tolerance for you or anyone else and their shenanigans. That being said I straight up think your wrong that’s all, Sports betting is something that MLB doesn’t need or want they makee enough money gouging people that are foolish enough to buy $12 hot dogs and $15 Dixie cups of stale keg beer. You really think they want mike long lines at kiosks in stadiums of degenerate gamblers betting on the game? Or better yet the stands half empty because most fans are at poker tables? You think they are going to build wings to park poker tables and slot machines? It’s ridiculous thinking really

Paul, you know I genuinely like you as well. But you should realize that you also perform "shenanigans" on here. And I've got no problem at all with it. In my view, those here or on any part of CU who vividly express their opinions and viewpoints are the most entertaining and enjoyable. And entertainment and enjoyment is why I like sports and the great hobbies of coin and card collecting which I have done for as long as I can remember.

As far as our basic discussion on this topic. I never underestimate the insatiable greed of the super rich. Most good folks are happy making a decent living, having a nice family, house and car, fun hobbies or other activities, and basically that's that.

The super rich are in a category that I don't think either one of us could ever fully comprehend. They have a desire for insatiable greed, and if there is an opportunity for more, they will take it without hesitation. That type of mentality is what got them super rich to begin with, unless it was inherited money.

I understand your basic point, which i think is if MLB owners are doing well in life with their baseball teams, then they shouldn't introduce gambling into their stadium premises because that could muck up their operation. But that's the way you would think, a nice guy who worked hard in law enforcement, is a great sports fan, enjoys card collecting, and once in a while blows a few dollars at Foxwoods.

However that's not the way the super rich think. I believe that if the opportunity presents itself to have multiple forms of gambling at their stadiums, then they will do it without hesitation.

Let's tell it like it is...having all that gambling at a baseball stadium would be a license for them to print money, and that's what really turns them on in life....the money and power, constantly feeding their enormous ego.

In any event, we shall see how it eventually all plays out.

perkdog · February 21, 2019 10:29AM

Steve I know I’m not innocent of shenanigans or Tom foolery for that matter but please know I never maliciously disrespect someone here who has a different view point, I type angry at members for sure but my intent is always to pointabd counter point. Sometimes it gets heated 🤷‍♂️ Either way regarding Owners and rich people I definitely understand where your coming from, if the owners could make it happen then I’m sure they would if it meant millions more in profit but I don’t think any owner is going to be the first “That guy” to introduce gambling at his American pastime venue, I also can’t picture a commissioner opening up that can of worms by allowing it.

stevek · February 21, 2019 11:37AM

@perkdog said:
Steve I know I’m not innocent of shenanigans or Tom foolery for that matter but please know I never maliciously disrespect someone here who has a different view point, I type angry at members for sure but my intent is always to pointabd counter point. Sometimes it gets heated 🤷‍♂️ Either way regarding Owners and rich people I definitely understand where your coming from, if the owners could make it happen then I’m sure they would if it meant millions more in profit but I don’t think any owner is going to be the first “That guy” to introduce gambling at his American pastime venue, I also can’t picture a commissioner opening up that can of worms by allowing it.

I would have agreed with ya before that SCOTUS ruling on sports gambling. But that ruling opened up a new can of worms.

Actually, I think MLB always played coy on gambling because they had no other choice. Except for Nevada, sports gambling Vegas style was technically illegal in every other state.

Deep down though thru the years, i think most of these sports team owners salivated over the possibility of legalized sports gambling, and now that they've got it, they are proceeding accordingly.

I don't disagree with ya about every team owner. A gentleman like Robert Kraft may try to keep out of it. However there will be forces beyond the control of sports team owners, particularly in the state I previously mentioned that are starving for ways to get more money.

So whether they like it or not, and I believe most of them will like it anyway, the team owners in certain states that legalize sports betting, will be highly pressured to do what politicians, advertisers, and other businesses want them to do. If the team owners refuse, they would suffer various negative consequences...but they won't refuse.

hammer1 · February 21, 2019 11:51AM

So this means Harper is looking at 35M for 10, and then Trout in 2 years is looking at 40M for 10.

Machado- Padres 10 years 300M

Comments