What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

MLB 2015-16: Grays Sports Almanac Edition

Re: MLB 2015-16: Grays Sports Almanac Edition

Hammer said:
I differentiate gambling and PED's on two points:

1) As you mentioned, the rules and punishments were clear-cut on gambling. Not so on PED's.

2) You would think that those that are juicing are trying to compete and win. Cheating? Absolutely. But still trying to win. However, once you start inviting those who are involved in the competition to gamble, no one can be sure that what we're watching is real competition, and not pre-determined. THAT'S the big problem with the gambling.

I suppose we're debating between the Ace of Spades of cheating, and the King of Hearts. Both rank up there pretty high on the list.
Click to expand...
And his proud admission he never bet on his own team to lose or whatever...

ANY actions he did as manager affected future games. IIRC he said he never bet on his team to lose, BUT...you are facing a weaker opponent? You might use your ace closer when it's not needed. Oh, you happened to bet that your team was going to win. Then your ace is not available the next game, or the game after that, and that is a game you didn't bet on. Domino effect.
 
Re: MLB 2015-16: Grays Sports Almanac Edition

Add that to the fact that he apparently told Manfred that he still bets on MLB.
 
Re: MLB 2015-16: Grays Sports Almanac Edition

Watching "Astrodome" on MLB Network. The ballpark only held major league baseball for roughly 35 years.

It just goes to show you that you probably shouldn't get attached to these ballparks today. The average ballpark is only around for 30-50 years before it needs a nearly complete rebuild, or replacement. This generation of new ballparks that we see today will probably either be replaced, or serious conversations will be taking place regarding replacement, by the 40's.
 
Last edited:
Re: MLB 2015-16: Grays Sports Almanac Edition

Hammer said:
Watching "Astrodome" on MLB Network. The ballpark only held major league baseball for roughly 35 years.

It just goes to show you that you probably shouldn't get attached to these ballparks today. The average ballpark is only around for 30-50 years before it needs a nearly complete rebuild, or replacement. This generation of new ballparks that we see today will probably either be replaced, or serious conversations will be taking place regarding replacement, by the 40's.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to see this in the early history of baseball. The late 19th / early 20th C ballparks used to be replaced every 15-20 years. (They usually burned down.)

From your opening sentence I first thought you were talking about this cinematic classic.

If voters ever wise up, stadiums will go back to being hundred year investments, because the owners won't be able to milk city bonds anymore.
 
Last edited:
Re: MLB 2015-16: Grays Sports Almanac Edition

That's the thing, though. Stadiums never were 100 year investments, at least not at the MLB level. The upper limit appears to be around 50 years before you've got to either make major renovations or look at replacement. Fenway and Wrigley are the exceptions, not the norms, and I suspect that both are in much worse shape than anyone's letting on.
 
Re: MLB 2015-16: Grays Sports Almanac Edition

Hammer said:
That's the thing, though. Stadiums never were 100 year investments, at least not at the MLB level. The upper limit appears to be around 50 years before you've got to either make major renovations or look at replacement. Fenway and Wrigley are the exceptions, not the norms, and I suspect that both are in much worse shape than anyone's letting on.
Click to expand...
Wrigley's issues were made public a decade ago. The chicken wire/netting drilled into the crumbling concrete support structures to prevent loose pieces from hitting fans is/was made very public. Wrigley has LONG been in need of an overhaul, but sentimental idiots who only see Wrigley for the ivy wall, bleacher seats, warm beer, and that stupid "Go Cubs, Go" song blindly kept rejecting any course of action for years. A decade ago a wrecking ball would have been too nice for that dump.


Now that the rooftop owners, local aldermen, City of Chicago, and the Ricketts family have semi-settled their squabbles, they're slowly going through the park and replacing it; first with the whole outfield last winter, and now each subsequent year one part of the park will be rehabbed. There was talk of practically blowing the place up and building new/remodeling throughout a year-year and half, but that would have forced the Cubs to play at US Cellular or Miller Park. It was discussed in a prior MLB thread here that the Brewers actually approached the Cubs in leasing out Miller Park, but the Cubs flat out said "Thanks, but no thanks" to them and wanted to stay in Wrigley working around the construction.
 
Last edited:
aparch said:
Wrigley's issues were made public a decade ago. The chicken wire/netting drilled into the crumbling concrete support structures to prevent loose pieces from hitting fans is/was made very public. Wrigley has LONG been in need of an overhaul, but sentimental idiots who only see Wrigley for the ivy wall, bleacher seats, warm beer, and that stupid "Go Cubs, Go" song blindly kept rejecting any course of action for years. A decade ago a wrecking ball would have been too nice for that dump.


Now that the rooftop owners, local aldermen, City of Chicago, and the Ricketts family have semi-settled their squabbles, they're slowly going through the park and replacing it; first with the whole outfield last winter, and now each subsequent year one part of the park will be rehabbed. There was talk of practically blowing the place up and building new/remodeling throughout a year-year and half, but that would have forced the Cubs to play at US Cellular or Miller Park. It was discussed in a prior MLB thread here that the Brewers actually approached the Cubs in leasing out Miller Park, but the Cubs flat out said "Thanks, but no thanks" to them and wanted to stay in Wrigley working around the construction.
Click to expand...

Been keeping that one in four awhile, have you?

And sorry, but anyone who advocates the wrecking ball for Wrigley isn't a fan of baseball. The new scoreboards are abominations, but an afternoon game at Wrigley on an 80 degree summer's day is one of life's great pleasures.
 
Re: MLB 2015-16: Grays Sports Almanac Edition

The Yankees had to close Yankee Stadium after the 1973 season for two years to re-hab that one after 51 seasons, and it held up for another 33 seasons thru 2008. From what I've read, they had to gut the place and essentially rebuild the interior. At that point, you've got to at least do your due diligence and consider the cost of replacement. Tiger Stadium did the same thing in the mid-70's, although it didn't close.
 
Last edited:
Re: MLB 2015-16: Grays Sports Almanac Edition

Hammer said:
Fenway and Wrigley are the exceptions, not the norms, and I suspect that both are in much worse shape than anyone's letting on.
Click to expand...

I haven't been to Fenway in 20 years, but when I would go there in the 80s the place stunk with 75 years worth of urine. The only worse place I have been was the DAP (the old Durham Bulls ballpark), where drunks had been regularly p-ssing en masse under the stands since the 20s.
 
Re: MLB 2015-16: Grays Sports Almanac Edition

Now Aroldis Chapman has apparently been sent to the Yankees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top