Shore wrote:Both Bohm and Bryant were drafted at age 21.

2 years later, we hope Bohm is nearly ready. He's a top-35 prospect. He's put up an .845 OPS across 5 teams already.
2 years later, Bryant was ready (hence the grievance), and was #1 BA prospect, #2 MLB prospect. He had an OPS of nearly 1.100 across 5 teams.

Bryant won ROY and was 11th in MVP voting his first year, then won the MVP. In the 5 years he's been up, he's got the 3rd most fWAR in baseball, behind Trout and Betts, just ahead of Yelich, Lindor, Altuve, and Arenado. He's a legit star.

I like Bohm. I think he'll be a good player, maybe even very good. I hope he's outstanding. But we don't have a long history of guys who outperform their expectations - we may be the worst organization in baseball at turning prospects into stars over the last 20 years. And even if he somehow hit as well in the majors as he did in the minors, he'd still be worst than Bryant.

Make the deal, sign Bryant to a post-2021 extension. Arrieta's $20M comes off this year. Gregorius is on a 1 year deal for $14M. Robertson's $11M comes off next year. McCutchen is $20M in 2021, then a team option.. we have a ton of money freeing up.

So I have to think that klentak knows this and isn’t a complete idiot. Middleton also wants to win ASAP. And this team is built to “win now”

So why won’t they do it?

It would take them into the tax and the Phillies don’t want to go that high for a team they aren’t confident can win the division? No one wants to take segura?

Cubs don’t really want to trade Bryant or think they can get a better offer elsewhere?

All posturing to try to get the Cubs to lower their asking price?

Several options, regardless it doesn’t seem like there’s much if anything behind this “rumor” since the initial report of tire kicking.

the cubs don't value bohm as much as a lot of us do?

Warszawa wrote:So I have to think that klentak knows this and isn’t a complete idiot. Middleton also wants to win ASAP. And this team is built to “win now”

So why won’t they do it?

I assume they will/would do it. But I also think it's early February, and the Cubs asking price is probably utterly ridiculous. It's a dance. I'd bet we've expressed interest, but not at the current price, and are keeping the communication going. There are several teams that will be interested during the process, and there's a chance we miss out, or that the Cubs hold on to him. But if they don't, and we can get him for ANY package that isn't both Bohm and Howard, I think we'd do it. If it's both, I'm not sure we do.

We've really got a good chance to be good this year.

they changed the spring training truck from a standard 53 footer to tandem 28 footers.

Bucky wrote:they changed the spring training truck from a standard 53 footer to tandem 28 footers.

This is the type of content that I come to BSG for.

ek wrote:

Shore wrote:

Warszawa wrote:So I have to think that klentak knows this and isn’t a complete idiot. Middleton also wants to win ASAP. And this team is built to “win now”

So why won’t they do it?

I assume they will/would do it. But I also think it's early February, and the Cubs asking price is probably utterly ridiculous. It's a dance. I'd bet we've expressed interest, but not at the current price, and are keeping the communication going. There are several teams that will be interested during the process, and there's a chance we miss out, or that the Cubs hold on to him. But if they don't, and we can get him for ANY package that isn't both Bohm and Howard, I think we'd do it. If it's both, I'm not sure we do.

We've really got a good chance to be good this year.

I'm excited about Bryan Price. I think he can really settle things down and help a lot he may be more of a key then Girardi honestly

Price should be big.
Segura had 13.1 bWAR 2016-2018, then 1.3 in 2019. I think we'll see a 3+ bWAR season out of him.
Hoskins has a better season in him.
McCutchen should play a full year.
We won't get -0.8 WAR out of 3B, whether it's Bryant or anyone else.
Gregorius is better than people think, and motivated.
Wheeler.
The bullpen health.

Shore is bullish

how do i place bets in vegas from PA??

Bucky wrote:Shore is bullish

how do i place bets in vegas from PA??

buy a plane ticket

slugsrbad wrote:

Bucky wrote:Shore is bullish

how do i place bets in vegas from PA??

buy a plane ticket

Bucky'd

Bucky wrote:Shore is bullish

how do i place bets in vegas from PA??

FanDuel Sportsbook works from PA, I believe.

There are a few sports books in PA now

Yeah, is there a reason you are looking for vegas? You can just do FanDuel, draftkings and sugarhouse from your phone

i thought vegas was the only place that does things like world series odds

what do i know

Nah they all have futures.

MoBettle wrote:Joe Giglio keeps doing this bit where he tweets, writes articles (I imagine yells on the radio idk don't listen) where he's demanding Klentak to go get Bryant while also saying that Howard can't be in the trade...

he makes the rest of them seem like they're not bad at hosting sports talk radio.

The Athletic circled back on the Phanatic case. There is an early June deadline when the copyright can be reasserted by the people who created it. Certainly the clumsy way the team dealt with the IP in the beginning (not paying it as commissioned work, then taking license to it for some period of time, then eventually paying way more then they would have for the privilege to licence - something - in perpetuity) is the premise of this fiasco.

At issue is what The Copyright Act giving creators the option to "claw back" materials licensed after 35 years means in the context of signing an agreement in perpetuity. On the contrary, where The Phillies will argue that it was "work for hire" and thus not subject to the 35 year termination, in their cheapness they let the puppeteers copyright the mascot in 1978, and the 35 year termination was law then. In effect, and lawyers among us chime in, this could redefine what 'in perpetuity' means legally. Nominally it will reinforce the position that The Copyright Act nullifies in perpetuity in the case of copyrighted materials, if this argument is accepted.

The Phillies implicated Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. (MLBP) which manages licensing. MLBP apparently wants nothing to do with this, but the creative firm wants to know what kind of scratch the Phillies are making on our furry friend to set the price of a new agreement in this hostage negotiation.

The termination provisions were an integral part of The Copyright Act of 1976, which went into general effect on 1/1/78. They were meant to replace the older and archaic system of an initial copyright term of 28 years plus a renewal term, which had to be filed for by the author (or his or her successor). Failure to do so would result in the copyright entering the public domain. The system was a trap for the unwary.

Since the enabling provision of the Constitution allows for Congress to create copyright laws in favor of authors to “promote the progress of science and useful arts,” one of the main tenets of the implementation of the law has always been to protect authors (btw, “author” is a term of art referring to the creator/original owner).

The concept of a license “in perpetuity” is merely a contractual construct because the Constitutional enabling provision itself limits copyright rights to “limited times.” When combined with the termination right established by the Act of 1976, a license purportedly “in perpetuity” in merely an attempt by licensees to get as long a license as possible, but always subject to the termination provisions.

FYI law in law school and early in my career I was the Co-Editor of the definitive multi-volume work on the legislative history of The Copyright Act of 1976.

So we get to blame you for this mess.

Had the cheap ass phillies just commissioned the work this would not even be a topic.

Unfortunately for the Phils the creation of The Phanatic by an independent contractor would probably not be considered a work for hire under law even if the contract said it was. Therefore any agreement would most likely have been considered a license subject to termination. There is room for argument about whether it could have been considered a work for hire (with the Phils therefore considered the “author” for copyright purposes) but that argument would almost certainly not prevail in court.