CyberBull

If 9 people meet my $100 pledge, we can sponsor a "TheBullsPen.com" player's locker.  If we can get more than 9, we might be able to do a coach's locker or some other items.

Just post it here...and help build the new facility.

Thanks,

Brad

....as long as Minotaur is not collecting the money you may be on to something.

...the latest sports news and happenings brought to you by our very own West correspondent.

See if you can find the details on that as it would be interesting to see how much the sox tv deal is for also.  I dont think the yanks could be making 250 million in revenue not including tv and then an additional 250 million with TV. I say there is no way they are taking in that much coin and if so not having to share with other owners. I think there is no way that could be happening.

There has never been more money in baseball.

I unfortunately closed the window before copying the url to reference the information below, but the amount of money baseball is making staggering.

Baseball revenues:

1990 - $1.0 billion

1995 - $1.6 billion

2001 - $3.0 billion

2004 - $4.0 billion

That is a lot money collectively. These are the kind of numbers that Marvin Miller and now Don Fehr arm the players with when they go to the negociation table. The owners are always going to cry that they are losing money but the numbers say otherwise.

Bud Selig not withstanding, they are like a bunch of car salesman. What is the favorite line of salesman when you try to haggle on price???  "I'm not making any money on this deal."

Yeah right....is what you and I would and it's the same thing the players are saying to the owners.

I have no problems with teams spending as much as they want. There should be some limits but the real problems are teams like the Devil Rays which are about $30-million under MLB average in salaries. That is a joke. Teams like the D-Rays should not receive any revenue sharing b/c it's quite obvious that they are not spending it on players.

BTW....if there are any Rays fans in the house....the buzz going around town is that the Rays are quietly trying to trade promising young slugger Aubrey Huff b/c they don't want to pay him the salary he would command on the open market.

If that happens I done supporting the hometown Rays.

I've been trying to work up a comparison between NFL and MLB broadcast contracts. What I've realized is that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

In MLB, the vast majority of games are aired via team-specific broadcast contracts, as opposed to league-wide broadcast contracts. With 162 regular season contests per team, a very low percentage of them will make ESPN, Fox, or ABC. It makes sense for most of the regular-season schedule to be carried on team-specific, regional channels. (The same is true of the NHL and NBA.)

We in Florida have little interest in all three games of a midseason Indians-Royals series, and it isn't profitable for national channels to carry more than the occasional game of interest. Thus, MLB teams turn to regional channels like YES (Yankees), NESN (Red Sox), TBS (Braves), Fox Sports Whereveritis, and other such regional channels to carry the bulk of their team's games.

In the NFL, on the other hand, it makes sense for every single game to be part of the national broadcast deal, since there are only 16 of them. Unlike the D-Rays, the Buccaneers have no need to broadcast regular-season games on Sunshine, because all the Bucs games can be seen locally via the NFL's national broadcast package (blackout rules aside). Even if you follow an out-of-region NFL team, you can see all your team's games within the NFL's national TV contract via DirecTV/Dish network, or, at worst, a local sports bar.

Here's where I'm going with this: the MLB broadcast revenue-sharing plan does not speak to the nature of MLB broadcast arrangements. Yes, revenues from national TV games are shared leaguewide, but that is by far the smaller piece of the pie. The source of most MLB broadcast income is regional deals, which are not shared.

It makes sense for the NFL to equitably distribute its TV revenue, because all broadcast dealings are handled by the league office, not the individual teams. (Individual teams do make deals with local sports channels for coaches' shows, preseason games and whatnot, but those are small potatoes.)

The MLB's "luxury tax" attempts to mimic NFL revenue sharing, when their financial model is totally different from the NFL's. The vast majority of individual-team revenue isn't affected by what they're trying to put a "luxury tax" on. And the small part that is, can be easily circumvented via creative accounting.

Bottom line: MLB is trying to core an apple with an orange peeler. They need to come up with something that addresses the unique nature of their broadcast deals. This offseason's player movement in MLB makes it painfully obvious that the luxury tax is not achieving the intended effect of balancing team spending (and thus, competitiveness) league-wide.

MLB's  baseball revenue sharing plan is not really all at fault here. The biggest cry we here from the fans and media alike is that the "rich are getting richer". Well that is not necessarily true.

The RedSucks, Yankees, and the other big spenders are not doing anything illegal. Their  free spending is allowed under the current agreement and the penalties in place for going over the unofficial "salary cap" should help subsidize the teams below them.

The problem I see is that the teams receiving revenue sharing money are not spending it on players. Instead I see a lot of teams dumping salaries. Instead of adding players to improve their ball clubs they are pocketing the cash and then crying about the inequity of the whole system.

What baseball needs to do is enforce a loose salary cap where there are harsh penalties for being for spending too much or not spending enough. The existing plan is not perfect but I never would of believed that baseball would ever go to any type of labor system that even hinted at a salary cap. They just need to tweak it a little more so a good system for baseball can be developed.

IMO, a better existing model to use as a comparison is the NBA revenue sharing formula.

Like MLB, the NBA allows it's teams to broker their own local television and radio deals. I'm not sure of all the specifics but the distribution of revenue is far more equitable than MLB. The lychpin to their plan is the salary cap which I doubt we will ever see while Marvin Miller and his protege Don Fehr are still alive.

david boston

Any free agent that signs with Arizona is a bust the moment the ink dries on the contract.

Bidwell is Culverhouse without an Alabama twang.

KR - you want references?

Read George Will's baseball books. They are choke full of references and antidotes.

Again, williams was a great hitter but when it comes to best player Bonds wins. Williams was a one dimensional player. Bonds would of been an allstar even without a big stick b/c of his gold glove ability in the field and base running skills. Those kind of things win you ballgames.

remember the question was, who is the better baseball player. In that context, Bonds has to win b/c he is a 5 tool guy.

now if the question was, who is the best pure hitter then williams wins. However there is more to baseball than hitting.

I think Bob Gibson was the best pitcher of his era bar none. Look at what he did in the 1967 post season for one. Unreal.  How about your thoughts on Nolan Ryan as I would be interested in that.  I think longevity is a great thing in a sport like baseball as it takes quite an athlete to pitch and be effective for a long period of time like Sutton but I definately see how he could be left out as he did not dominate the game at any one time.  I do think the 300 wins gets you in and always should. I dont think we will see too many players reach 300 ever again. Maddux will probably get there but no one else has even a remote shot besides him. There are a ton of great young pitchers but there always is and most are not quite so great after a few good seasons. Hudson, Zito, Prior, Beckett etc.. one could be in there but I say give them 10 more years and see how close they are then or if they are even close to on pace.

Gibson is a good choice as Drysdale or Marishall.

Ryan played for a lot of bad teams so that explains his long climb to 300 wins. He also was a dominating pitcher who anchored staffs for several ballclubs. I have no problem with Ryan but he is not better than Gibson or IMO Tom Seaver.

Koufax is an exception. Nobody, not even Bob Feller in his hey day, dominated hitters like Sandy koufax. IMO, in certain rare occasions the HOF should take into account greatness that was derailed by injury or tragedy such as Roberto Clemente.

Perez......I love Perez's game but was he the best first baseman of his generation? In his prime the guy was often time overshadowed by Steve Garvey.

Maz....baseball legend but should we put Bucky Dent in the HOF?

Sutton? Hard call b/c 300 games has been the benchmark, but most people would probably name at least 50 pitchers they would have on their team before Sutton's name gets called. Sutton may be the best number two starter in baseball history but.....his numbers are due to his longevity. To be fair that can be said about many players.

Any thoughts about Maris? IMO....no way. Several good seasons shouldn't get you a bust at Cooperstown.

Anybody else want to chime in on this?

GarySJ....aren't you a baseball nut like us?

I think you are nuts Cyber.  Ted led league in RBI's three times, asd runs scored 5 times.  He had over 140 rbi 6 times.  Bonds has never had 140+ rbi in a season.  I dont agree on the he needs to swing the bat analogy.  Baseball is a team game and he wanted to get on base. Runs on the scoreboard are what wins games not who knocked them in.  Ted scored over 120+ runs 8 times. Barry 5 times.  Now using your flawed logic it is quite amusing that Barry has had over 160+ hits in a year only TWICE in his career. His season high is 181. 7 times in his career Teddy had at least 181 hits.  Where do you guys get your facts from?  Ted was intentionally walked many many times to but they didnt keep the stat until the end of his career.  In Teds worst year in which he had 400+ abs his worst average was .318.  Barry on the other hand has hit over .318 only 4 times in his career.  Barry batted in .200's 8 times.  Cyber you also say that Ted was an average fielder which is untrue as he was an above average outfielder and he was a good baserunner he just didnt steal bases.

KR - it's not just my opinion. This opinion was shared by most of Williams managers throughout his long career.

Nobody is taking away anything from williams but he just wasn't the complete ballplayer that Bonds has been throughout his career.

It's just not about statistics. What baseball historians have found fault with Williams has been approach toward the game. It may sound like we are nitpicking a great player, but if williams swang the bat a few more times instead of taking some very hittable pitches, I guarantee that Boston would of won more games.

Baseball is the ultimate team game but for Williams it was always about his numbers. BTW, before you bring up 1941, where he could of sat the last game of the season to preserve his 0.400 season think about William's MO. I've read quotes from Williams that he even entertained sitting b/c he knew that the opposing pitcher that day could not get him out. If that is not confidence I don't know what it is, but it also shows you how cognizant Williams was about his numbers.

Now look.....with all of this being said I really can't rip Teddy Ballgame. He will always be one of baseball's top 10 players. He is just not in the same class as Barry Bonds. When we talk about Bonds we move up another level and talk about top 5.

My personal Top 5 of All Time:

Bonds...Aaron....Ruth....Mays....Dimaggio

I can think of a couple right away....

Don Sutton

Kirby Puckett

Tony Perez

Bill Mazeroski

These were all excellent players but marginal HOFers. To me the reason why the baseball HOF is the most relevant of all the professional sports is it's exclusivity.

Only the cream of the crop every generation should get inducted.

Sutton won 300 games but it took him over 22 years and he often times wasn't even the best pitcher on the Dodgers rotation.

Perez was the 4th or 5th best player on the Big Red Machine. (Morgan>Rose>Bench>Concepcion>>Perez)

Puckett's stats were inflated by playing the homer dome. Mattingly's career was cut short should my favorite player of all time get in.......unfortunately no.

Bill Mazeroski was way before my time but if you look at his career stats they don't scream HOF. Sorry but a 0.260 career hitter with less than 150 homers and 868 RBIs doesn't belong. It's an insult to truly great second basemen like Joe Morgan or Rod Carew.

Helper link: http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/lists/inducted.htm

This is easy....Bonds by a landslide.

Ted Williams was an enigma in life and as we have found out in death.

Bonds is the complete package, a 5-tool kind of player that only comes around a couple times every generation.

Williams was a great hitter but was an average baserunner and fielder at best. It can be argued that his reputation as a hitter is overstated.

Williams never had a 200-hit season. Why? Many reasons but one reason is that his tenacity in waiting for the perfect pitch to hit resulted in him leading the league in walks. Now you counter that Bonds has alot of walks but this was different. Bonds gets intentionally walked alot or pitchers just don't throw anything anywhere near the strike zone.

With williams if the ball was a shade outside his hitting zone he wouldn't swing. Why is this bad? Well as a cleanup hitter you need them to use their big bats for extra base hits and drive in runs. A walk is nice but it puts the burden on the next batter who was obviously not as talented as Williams. Baseball is a team game. So taking a pitch that is just milimeters outside while the winning or tying run is on second base is just bad hitting. The goal is to win right?

Williams was selfish, probably moreso than Bonds. I remember reading an article where a Boston sportswriter was quoted as saying, that "Boston now knows how Britain felt when they lost India. It was was diminished but also a bit relieved."

1B - ???

2B - ???

SS - Ernie Banks

3B - Ron Santo

OF - Andre Dawson

OF - Tony Gwynn

OF - Ted Williams

C- Carlton Fisk

there will never be another Don Baylor who got hit by at least 300 pitches during his long career.

Most players today would charge the mound if a pitch is anywhere close to being inside.

It's just a different game than when I was growing up. Just to give you a reference point, I really started following baseball in the mid-1970s. My 'heros' were REggie Jackson, roy white and Lou pinella. I was also a big fan of Mike Schmidt.

How much money do you think a player like Schmidt would make? Is there an infielder in baseball today outside of A-Rod as talented as Micheal Jack?

one more thing, if you want to see the inside pitch return to baseball, MLB shoud outlaw the football armor players like Barry Bond, Giambi or Many Ramierez are so fond of wearing. Players nowadays have no fear b/c of all the padding they wear.

They need to come down hard on the usage of this equipment. That is, if you are so banged up that you have to wear extra equipment then perhaps you shouldn't be playing.

I can understand an ankle guard but that arm-length armor that Bonds uses is ridiculous.

The DH isn't the problem so much as the fact that pitchers simply can't pitch inside anymore.

If Gibson/Drysdale/etc did any of the stuff today they did in the 60s, they'd be fined, ejected, suspended, and face constant mound-chargings from whiny, irate batters. And I'm just talking about pitching inside -- forget about something as horrid as throwing behind a guy who shows you up.

That, along with the current enforcement of the strike zone, essentially MAKE pitchers throw the ball right over the plate like it's Little League. And everybody wonders why there are so many home runs hit. Hint: the ball's not juiced.

I'm not sure about that. Pitching inside is a mindset. Players like Drysdale, Gibson, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton etc...excelled b/c not only did they have great stuff and control but they threw inside. They were fully committed to doing this as part of their game.

I doubt they would stop doing this even if they got suspended every once and awhile. Eventually they would push the issue to the point where there would have to be some legitimate discussion about what a pitcher can and can't do. Furthermore, umpires will eventually get tired of throwing these guys out of games.

For example, in hockey for years the league has been trying to clamp down on clutching and grabbing. Teams like New Jersey get penalized alot inthe early part of the year but by midseason the refs get tired of calling penalties. That is why the Devils get away with murder in the playoffs.

IMO, if enough young pitchers had the guts to pitch inside, we would eventually see the umpires return the inside strike to baseball.  There are a few youngs guy who do this like Woods, Prior and Beckett but it's going require a wholesale change to the way pitchers approach an at-bat.

Just my $0.02....

Nomar's better years are behind him. Coming back from a wrist injury is always difficult and I've read many reports that his bat speed is not what it once was.

Ramierez is a talented bum. He dogs it on the field and has a questionable attitude. The big winners will be the RedSox if they can get A-Rod, who is is the prime of his career.

Look for the Yankees to respond to this move by countering with Vlad  Guerrro (sp?).

In other news, the Devil Rays are out of money after sign Jose Cruz Jr and Rey Sanchez.  

Pedro developed his reputation as a 'headhunter' while in the minor leagues for the Expos. He took his at bats like everyone else in the Senior circuit.

Clemens did not back down when he pitched against the Mets in the World Series at Shea Stadium. So again, teams had their chances to get their licks against the Rocket.

Pitchers like Marshial, Gibson, Dyrsdale etc did not have the benefit of the DH and made a living pitching inside. Furthermore they would knock down their own grandmothers if they thought they we being shown up.

We wouldn't see Barry Bonds or Sammy sosa do thier little schitick in the 1960s. Like in hockey, if given the chance players will police themselves.

Nothing worse than seeing a 134lb shortstop showboating after cranking out a 400ft home run. If I was pitching and a little runt like that tried to show me up, I would make him eat dirt during his next at bat.

MLB needs to get rid of the DH.

Good for Clemens. I'm not a real big Clemens fan b/c I will always consider him to be a RedSox, but I do respect his approach to the game.

Yo can't blame Clemens for throwing inside. The pitcher should be forced to serve the ball down the middle of the plate. Clemens also is a personality something that baseball is sorely lacking.

I also think that he should come back, especially in the National League. It would be nice for the fans in the Senior circuit to watch the last 300 game winner baseball is going to have for a long, long time.

.... can any city in the US boast a more demanding and intense lineup of coaches than the Tampa Bay area?

Think about it....

How can you guys watch that stuff? That has to be the most boring style of hockey ever played.