Beardog26 said:

---

Think about your ask there. Obtuse is the guy's middle name.

---

Think about using the word question instead of sounding like a ******

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

How is basketball bought?

---

He means you can instantly get yourself a winning team in basketball just by signing one player. Not so in baseball.

---

Like who?

---

LeBron James, for one.

---

The first team that Lebron won championships with, they bought 3 players.

The second team that Lebron joined already had one high level player and they had to trade for another good player for the team to be good. And then even after that, they had to trade for more players beyond that to get to the championship round.

Lebron definitely elevates a team, but he doesn't win singlehandedly.

---

I said "winning team," not "championship."

---

So basketball teams buy players so they can finish 42-40?

---

Don't be obtuse. The point is that a single great basketball player brings a lot more marginal value to his team than a single baseball player can.

---

Well yeah, but that's not surprising considering there are only 5 players per team on a basketball court at a time per team.

Wow apparently Stanton to Yankees

Only time will tell if dodgers f'ed this one up.

Pretty ideal for the giants. Get Stanton out of nl and chances of getting Harper go from 1% to 2%!

Stanton to Yankees reminds me of Arod deal. You're dealing with a desperate banana republic franchise who needs cash, is losing leverage by the day and is more focused on money than winning. Why not play? They have a lot of their own dreck they can move move? Ellsbury? Headley? Throw in Castro and a reliever or a prospect?

So, the Giants now own the twin titles of the highest payroll in all of baseball AND the worst record in all of baseball. Remarkable. I wonder if it's ever happened previously in the history of professional sports where a team has laid claim to both of those crowns simultaneously. Congrats!

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

Will Barry Bonds ever make the HOF? Didn't make it in today.

I get why some writers and old-timer players (e.g. Joe Morgan) are steadfast against the inclusion of Bonds and other "cheaters" in the HOF, but if there was ever a guy that deserved the Hall, it is Bonds (Clemens and, for other reasons, Rose, too).

The sad part is Bonds and Clemens would've been first ballot guys if they had never even looked at a PHD. The very pinnacle of elite in the game for many years.

Another Bear said:

---

Will Barry Bonds ever make the HOF? Didn't make it in today.

---

I think yes, he will get in eventually. If the writers don't elect him (though his vote support has improved every year), then the Veterans Committee probably does at some point.

Note that I'm not sure exactly how long that will take. Could be decades.

Also, I notice the Giants got Andrew McCutchen and Austin Jackson to shore up their outfield, so at the very least they should be more competitive next year.

Another Bear said:

---

Will Barry Bonds ever make the HOF? Didn't make it in today.

---

Definitely. Probably not through the writers, who are hypocrites on the steroids issue.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

So, the Giants now own the twin titles of the highest payroll in all of baseball AND the worst record in all of baseball. Remarkable. I wonder if it's ever happened previously in the history of professional sports where a team has laid claim to both of those crowns simultaneously. Congrats!

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

---

But SF is second on that list. How did you figure they have the highest payroll? Also, they do not have the worst record in baseball. If they did, they would have the first choice in this year's draft.

71Bear said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

So, the Giants now own the twin titles of the highest payroll in all of baseball AND the worst record in all of baseball. Remarkable. I wonder if it's ever happened previously in the history of professional sports where a team has laid claim to both of those crowns simultaneously. Congrats!

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

---

But SF is second on that list. How did you figure they have the highest payroll? Also, they do not have the worst record in baseball. If they did, they would have the first choice in this year's draft.

---

Souse is soused

71Bear said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

So, the Giants now own the twin titles of the highest payroll in all of baseball AND the worst record in all of baseball. Remarkable. I wonder if it's ever happened previously in the history of professional sports where a team has laid claim to both of those crowns simultaneously. Congrats!

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

---

But SF is second on that list. How did you figure they have the highest payroll? Also, they do not have the worst record in baseball. If they did, they would have the first choice in this year's draft.

---

That payroll tracker is constantly updating so things may have moved a little since I posted that link.

And if the Giants didn't have the worst record in baseball, what team had a worse record? Tied for worst is still worst.

Still, all in good fun.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

71Bear said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

So, the Giants now own the twin titles of the highest payroll in all of baseball AND the worst record in all of baseball. Remarkable. I wonder if it's ever happened previously in the history of professional sports where a team has laid claim to both of those crowns simultaneously. Congrats!

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

---

But SF is second on that list. How did you figure they have the highest payroll? Also, they do not have the worst record in baseball. If they did, they would have the first choice in this year's draft.

---

That payroll tracker is constantly updating so things may have moved a little since I posted that link.

And if the Giants didn't have the worst record in baseball, what team had a worse record? Tied for worst is still worst.

Still, all in good fun.

---

I hear you...

Quite frankly, I wish SF had lost one more game to get the #1 selection. I subscribe to the "I would rather be first and last than second place twice" attitude. Also, once Boston signs Martinez, they will be a lock for the top payroll spot. Like LA, the Giants are not going over the payroll tax limit.

Pitchers and catchers in a couple of weeks!

Next year, Kershaw will likely opt out of his contract. How much will LA spend to retain him?

Wouldn't be surprised if LA also tries to sign one of the other big name free agents, like Harper. (SF will also try, but it's a harder sell.)

The Giants did tie for the worst record in MLB, though they were probably unlucky to have a record that bad. If you look at run differential, both the Padres and Tigers were worse.

Though it's not like being the third-worst team is anything to be happy about.

It's never too early...

February 24, 2018...

Giants 9 Dodgers 3

Is the season over for the Giants?

Could be. How long is Bum out? Also, the Giants salary cap is at $193m...$9m more than the Dodgers, but slated to finish fourth ahead of SD.

The Dodgers lost Justin Turner for a few weeks.

The Boston Red Sox will top the major leagues payroll at about $223 million. The San Francisco Giants will be second at around $203 million (despite the cloud of smug insinuations that they aren't high spenders), and the Chicago Cubs are set to be third at about $183 million.

The Dodgers and Washington Nationals will each be at approximately $180 million, and the Los Angeles Angels will be next at about $170 million. The Yankees will be at around $167 million -- their lowest payroll since 2003.

Your payroll will be large when you have very few, ie. none, young players. The Dodgers have done a great job with scouting. The Giants keep signing middle aged, relatively high priced free agents. The last time their scouts did a great job they got the core of their three WS teams so they get some slack here. I expect the Giants payroll to go down after this year unless a miracle happens.

oski003 said:

---

The Boston Red Sox will top the major leagues payroll at about $223 million. The San Francisco Giants will be second at around $203 million (despite the cloud of smug insinuations that they aren't high spenders), and the Chicago Cubs are set to be third at about $183 million.

The Dodgers and Washington Nationals will each be at approximately $180 million, and the Los Angeles Angels will be next at about $170 million. The Yankees will be at around $167 million -- their lowest payroll since 2003.

---

Mods, please move to the OT board. I don't appreciate having to wade past references to two teams I strongly dislike every day I visit this board. Thanks.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Why don't we vote on it?

---

Why would I join you in a blatant case of tyranny of the majority?

Alexander Hamilton was correct when he said, "The Giants are full to the rim with hollow fanfaronade, while the Dodgers are nothing if not rampallions. May they both be visited by Sir Tommy John."

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Why don't we vote on it?

---

Why would I join you in a blatant case of tyranny of the majority?

Alexander Hamilton was correct when he said, "The Giants are full to the rim with hollow fanfaronade, while the Dodgers are nothing if not rampallions. May they both be visited by Sir Tommy John."

---

Chapman, you're my favorite curmudgeon... and I'm not even being facetious this time.

I have a question:

I live in Los Angeles.

I have YouTube TV.

MLB Network recently joined YouTube TV.

When I look up some Dodgers games, some are on MLB TV, but they are restricted to out of market.

What does that mean exactly?

When the Dodgers are on the road, I can't watch?

Or I can't watch the Dodgers at all on MLB Network because I live in L.A.?

okaydo said:

---

I have a question:

I live in Los Angeles.

I have YouTube TV.

MLB Network recently joined YouTube TV.

When I look up some Dodgers games, some are on MLB TV, but they are restricted to out of market.

What does that mean exactly?

When the Dodgers are on the road, I can't watch?

Or I can't watch the Dodgers at all on MLB Network because I live in L.A.?

---

Edit: I think what's going on is you can't watch your local teams games on MLBTV. You must tune to your local affiliate. So, for me, Giants games are on NBC Sports Bay Area. If MLBTV happens to broadcast a game on MLBTV, I can't use MLBTV. I have to go to NBC Sports Bay Area.

The game tonight is on ESPN

GMP said:

---

okaydo said:

---

I have a question:

I live in Los Angeles.

I have YouTube TV.

MLB Network recently joined YouTube TV.

When I look up some Dodgers games, some are on MLB TV, but they are restricted to out of market.

What does that mean exactly?

When the Dodgers are on the road, I can't watch?

Or I can't watch the Dodgers at all on MLB Network because I live in L.A.?

---

Edit: I think what's going on is you can't watch your local teams games on MLBTV. You must tune to your local affiliate. So, for me, Giants games are on NBC Sports Bay Area. If MLBTV happens to broadcast a game on MLBTV, I can't use MLBTV. I have to go to NBC Sports Bay Area.

---

Yup, that's the idea. Your local team will be blacked out except on the local affiliate.

MLB blackout rules are a little ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_blackout_policy

Some teams claim truly MASSIVE territorial broadcast rights, which results in a lot of games being blacked out for internet streaming. For example, if you live in Las Vegas? Congratulations! You are now blacked out of all games featuring the Giants, A's, Dodgers, Angels, Padres, and D-Backs. They all claim territory in southern Nevada.

GMP said:

---

okaydo said:

---

I have a question:

I live in Los Angeles.

I have YouTube TV.

MLB Network recently joined YouTube TV.

When I look up some Dodgers games, some are on MLB TV, but they are restricted to out of market.

What does that mean exactly?

When the Dodgers are on the road, I can't watch?

Or I can't watch the Dodgers at all on MLB Network because I live in L.A.?

---

Edit: I think what's going on is you can't watch your local teams games on MLBTV. You must tune to your local affiliate. So, for me, Giants games are on NBC Sports Bay Area. If MLBTV happens to broadcast a game on MLBTV, I can't use MLBTV. I have to go to NBC Sports Bay Area.

---

thanks for the help.

So it's KTLA for some games.

----> https://www.thedailybeast.com/remembering-the-brooklyn-dodger-who-hijacked-a-plane

okaydo said:

---

GMP said:

---

okaydo said:

---

I have a question:

I live in Los Angeles.

I have YouTube TV.

MLB Network recently joined YouTube TV.

When I look up some Dodgers games, some are on MLB TV, but they are restricted to out of market.

What does that mean exactly?

When the Dodgers are on the road, I can't watch?

Or I can't watch the Dodgers at all on MLB Network because I live in L.A.?

---

Edit: I think what's going on is you can't watch your local teams games on MLBTV. You must tune to your local affiliate. So, for me, Giants games are on NBC Sports Bay Area. If MLBTV happens to broadcast a game on MLBTV, I can't use MLBTV. I have to go to NBC Sports Bay Area.

---

thanks for the help.

So it's KTLA for some games.

---

they want you to subscribe to time warner, since they paid a billion or so for those rights.