Comments on: Zack Greinke’s deal with Dodgers could reach $158 million

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:07:16 +0000

II want to be like a Boston fan and suffocate the crap out of the sports figures representing my town.

And the Dodgers regularly draw 3 million in attendance. Been doing it since the early ’80s, Beanbag.

By: gibbyfan

gibbyfan — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:56:25 +0000

Well Beantown –at least if gives me something to root for next season. It’s not likely to happen because it’s all about $$$, But i for one woul dbe delighted to see a repeat of last year–both the Dodgers and Angels home for the playoffs- with their cpllective payroll of 400 Million -there a certain kind of justice to that.

By: beantown85

beantown85 — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:42:40 +0000

I wonder what’ll happen when they realize that LA fans are fairweathers and won’t go to games unless they’re winning the NL west. They’re gonna have a hell of a time shedding some of those ridiculous salaries. Especially some of the salaries they took from the Red Sox

By: manchestermiracle

manchestermiracle — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 03:26:20 +0000

I can’t disagree with your frustration, but let’s not forget all the other crap channels one must also buy when one is stuck with either cable or satellite. There are, I kid you not, more than six pages (seven channels per page) on my Dish Network guide that are either shopping or religious channels. Certainly more than the basic sports package has, and enough to make a shopping-phobic atheist take up gardening.

With a decent internet connection you can always invest in a smart TV and pay for only the stuff you want. Streaming HD content, as well as speed, is getting better by the day.

By: manchestermiracle

manchestermiracle — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 03:20:51 +0000

Wouldn’t they actually have to start accomplishing something to justify what they already get?

By: gibbyfan

gibbyfan — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:51:18 +0000

I’m afraid you are probably right KK, but I think if this becomes widely known there should be enough outrage that maybe something will be done –although I have seen comments on here about it, it didnt really hit home until I saw the piece this morning.

By: kkolchak

kkolchak — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:26:50 +0000

“FCC is taking the matter under advisement and there might be some hope for redress”

While I absolutely agree with your point, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the FCC to grow a pair of stones and challenge these billionaire sports owners.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:51:36 +0000

Halladay didn’t become a FA, he signed an extension first…didn’t he?

…but a lot of older guys that sign 1 and 2 year deals aren’t over-pays. The Dempster deal isn’t an overpay. Haren’s deal isn’t. McCarthy’s deal isn’t.

By: biasedhomer

biasedhomer — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:33:41 +0000

Of course a team is going to have to overpay for the cream of the crop in free agency, but after a certain point, they are just outbidding themselves.

By: gibbyfan

gibbyfan — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:27:43 +0000

I saw a great piece on Bloomberg this morning about the cost of cable for sports programming. It was estimated that in the NY/NJ area to be about $55/month.The kicker is people who subscribe to cable have little choice because a lot of the expense is part of a bundle. So, that is at least in some part where all the absurd $$$ are coming from. So, if true, it means that a significant part of the money being thrown around is coming out of the pockets of those who either dont use the product or even those that do but have no choice in the matter
Good news is, as I understood it, the FCC is taking the matter under advisement and there might be some hope for redress–maybe subscribers could either opt in or out for the sports package. If that were to happen I think we would see a major and refreshing sea change take place. I bet all of a sudden players would find tha tthey actually may be able to get by on just a couple million/year.
For myself, I am going to look into it a little more and if I do understand it correctly I will be finding a way out. I have no problem with with players making whatever the market dictates–that’s the american way. But I want no part of susbsidizing it at prevailing levels.

By: ptfu

ptfu — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:20:55 +0000

AFAIK, the only permissible performance bonuses are for playing time. Things like reaching X plate appearances, innings pitched, games started or finished.

I don’t think you can get a bonus for events that happen within games, such as hitting X home runs or striking out X hitters.

By: Francisco (FC)

Francisco (FC) — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:47:13 +0000

Well for 2010 and 2011 I think Halladay took a pay cut if anything.

By: mirmz

mirmz — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:28:18 +0000

I thought bonuses like these were getting phased out in the new CBA – anybody care to explain? Are award bonuses OK, but performance-based bonuses not?

By: skipp504

skipp504 — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:21:21 +0000

Name a free agent pitcher over the last couple years that wasn’t over paid.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:16:46 +0000

I wonder if this would work with Congress…

By: paperlions

paperlions — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:11:41 +0000

These types of incentives are so strange…he’s already getting paid like a top 5 pitcher in all of MLB, not just the AL….so if he pitches like he is being paid to pitch….he gets paid more?

By: jaybird22seven

jaybird22seven — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:58:13 +0000

Over paid !!!!