Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

by **lethal** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:55:14

JFLNYC wrote:Samson may be a bigger prick than some others, but the story has been repeated time and again in other municipalities.

Yeah, how much did the Phillies chip in for CBP or the Eagles for LFF? Aren't both keeping almost 100% of the revenue generated too?

by **kruker** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 14:19:51

lethal wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:Samson may be a bigger prick than some others, but the story has been repeated time and again in other municipalities.

Yeah, how much did the Phillies chip in for CBP or the Eagles for LFF? Aren't both keeping almost 100% of the revenue generated too?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Phillies didn't hide how much they were making, Philadelphia wasn't in the midst of a financial crisis like South Florida was at the time of the approval of funding and the bond for CBP/the Linc is far more favorable to PA taxpayers than what Miami-Dade taxpayers got stuck with (and the sale of those bonds didn't prompt an SEC investigation). And with CBP, the split seems to have been 49/51.

The total cost is: $2.4 billion, spread over 40 years, to repay $409 million in bonds that will primarily, though not exclusively, cover stadium construction. Roughly $100 million will refinance existing bond debt and another $9 million goes into a debt service reserve fund. The result is $300 million for stadium construction, financed in two ways. One portion, underwritten by Merrill Lynch totaling $220 million, has an interest rate of 6.4 percent and requires immediate repayment. In October 2010 the county must pay $9.6 million, though there are questions over whether tourist taxes will meet that. Annual payments run through 2049 and climb as high as $71 million per year.
The second portion, underwritten by JP Morgan, is for $91 million, $80 million of that for construction. That carries an 8.17 rate, but repayment doesn't begin until 2025.
Yet that grace period comes with a big price: $83 million a year for three years starting in 2038. Then, starting in 2041, six years of payments totaling $118 million annually. Total cost to retire the debt: $1.2 billion.

by **Swiggers** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 17:33:43

Bryce Harper sent to AAA. So much for Davey's posturing.

by **bleh** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 17:56:06

He struck out 4 times today.

by **JFLNYC** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 18:20:43

But he's not a pain the the neck.

by **smitty** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 19:50:09

He's a big bust. They should have better luck with Anthony Rendon .

by **ReadingPhilly** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 19:52:16

Small sample size but the few times I saw Harper he didn't really stand out to me.

by **FTN** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 22:01:35

i read it somewhere the other day, maybe in goldstein's notes column, that a scout said "he looks like a .280 hitter with 35-40 HR power...thats great, but its not a once in a generation skill set"

i think people get swept up in it because hes so young. but unless he basically cuts down his strikeouts to 13-14%, he's not going to be a .300/40 HR guy, which would make him elite. I mean, that's what Ryan Braun is now, basically. So if he becomes as good as Ryan Braun, then the Nats will be happy, but I don't think we're talking about the next Babe Ruth here.

by **kruker** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 22:08:44

FTN wrote:i read it somewhere the other day, maybe in goldstein's notes column, that a scout said "he looks like a .280 hitter with 35-40 HR power...thats great, but its not a once in a generation skill set"

i think people get swept up in it because hes so young. but unless he basically cuts down his strikeouts to 13-14%, he's not going to be a .300/40 HR guy, which would make him elite. I mean, that's what Ryan Braun is now, basically. So if he becomes as good as Ryan Braun, then the Nats will be happy, but I don't think we're talking about the next Babe Ruth here.

Isn't that the one of the best indicators of future mlb success?

Part of the hype had to do with the fact that many people expected him to put up those numbers as a catcher. .280 with 35-40 HR at catcher would have been a once in a generation skill set.

I think this is a classic case of prognosticators trying to take a contrarian position in order to be "the one" who doubted the masses without recognizing that the contrarian position is actually in vogue.

by **FTN** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 22:16:45

age is important because if you perform well at a very young age, it stands to reason that you will improve, and if you're already really good, you will become great. which im sure he will. but yes, a lot of his value was in that he was a catcher with 40 HR power. Still, an OF with 40 HR power is awesome. But how much different will he be than GIANCARLO Stanton?

by **kruker** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 22:18:43

FTN wrote:age is important because if you perform well at a very young age, it stands to reason that you will improve, and if you're already really good, you will become great. which im sure he will. but yes, a lot of his value was in that he was a catcher with 40 HR power. Still, an OF with 40 HR power is awesome. But how much different will he be than GIANCARLO Stanton?

Post steroids, 50 HR potential is basically once in a generation. Stanton obviously has that. Harper almost certainly will too. Like I said, I think this is a classic case of people wanting to be contrarians. He's going to be special.

by **FTN** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 22:53:22

maybe people are just learning their lesson after the wieters fiasco

by **kruker** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 23:03:03

In that case, it seems like the lesson they learned is to take a chance on being "the contrarian." Unfortunately for them, they haven't noticed that just about everyone else is doing just that.

by **etched Chaos** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 23:21:34

kruker wrote:In that case, it seems like the lesson they learned is to take a chance on being "the contrarian." Unfortunately for them, they haven't noticed that just about everyone else is doing just that.

Which makes them no longer contrarians.

by **kruker** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 23:25:47

etched Chaos wrote:
kruker wrote:In that case, it seems like the lesson they learned is to take a chance on being "the contrarian." Unfortunately for them, they haven't noticed that just about everyone else is doing just that.

Which makes them no longer contrarians.

In their minds they are, which is what I'm getting at.

by **FTN** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 23:38:13

At this point, do you think he'll be a better hitter than Jose Bautista? Because Joey Bats posted a .447 OB% and 43 HR last year. And guys really aren't hitting 50 HR like they were 10 years ago.

For him to be a generational talent, he's going to have to post a .450 OB% and hit 50 HR per year, as a corner outfielder. If he'd stayed at catcher and put up a .400 OB% and hit 40 HR, then yeah, totally on board. If he can legitimately play CF, that helps his cause. Then again, Grandyman put up a .364 OB% and hit 41 HR.

He's gonna be good. He might even be one of the best hitters in the game. But he's got a half season against AA pitching under his belt. I think its okay for people to be skeptical.

by **Barry Jive** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 23:44:53

even if that's his ceiling, his youth gives him the advantage of being able to hit that ceiling over a longer period of time. if his ceiling offensively is Ryan Braun, he's still three years ahead of the curve and probably going to end up a much better fielder than Braun. those three years make a big difference even if he plateaus

by **kruker** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 23:56:47

He's the best bet going to be the next "best hitter in the game." Whether he gets there or not, who knows, but I don't see any reason for thinking less of him based on what he's shown so far. Now that's a bit of a tricky thing to say in this case because the hype was so large, but if you take the bs out of his projection then I think he's shown that he's as advertised.

If he's a 40hr/.400 obp he's a generational talent. I doubt the speed sticks, but if he can steal 20 a year and play center, we're talking a notch or two below Bonds' territory.

by **etched Chaos** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 00:39:38

So he could be a lesser Matt Kemp then?

by **kruker** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 02:32:37

etched Chaos wrote:So he could be a lesser Matt Kemp then?

And the same would be true of Kemp if he can do it consistently. That's kind of the key here, isn't it?

Archived

Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?

Re: Is there a Random Baseball Thoughts Thread?