bail out failed - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

bail out failed

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: bail out failed

Postby Dan Lambskin » Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:56 am

looks like Congress continues to fiddle while America burns

so here's a question to everyone in favor of letting them fail...are you in favor of another bank bailout that's going to be needed?

Help the Detroit 3 for sake of banks

Help the Detroit 3 for sake of banks
BY TODD SPANGLER and JUSTIN HYDE • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • December 5, 2008

Why? Detroit's automakers -- General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC -- and their suppliers have about $1 trillion worth of exposure in the financial markets by some estimates, and their collapse would send shock waves through the investment community.
Investment firm J.P. Morgan said this month that GM, Ford and their financing arms account for up to 10% of the junk bond market -- investments that could be worth nothing should the companies fail. GM reported that the Detroit Three automakers account for about $700 billion of outstanding debt.
Late Thursday, Democratic congressional leaders sent a letter to President George W. Bush...
[article continues]
Image
Dan Lambskin
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeLucky Ladders ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 10225
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: bail out failed

Postby Yoda » Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:02 pm

I am absolutely against the idea of bailouts. If I can't afford payments to my house or my car or whatever crap that I own, the government with all the tax $ I paid will not bail out my ass.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~George Carlin
Yoda
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 21344
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 15th green...

Re: bail out failed

Postby Dan Lambskin » Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:04 pm

Yoda wrote:I am absolutely against the idea of bailouts. If I can't afford payments to my house or my car or whatever crap that I own, the government with all the tax $ I paid will not bail out my ass.


i agree with you in principle, but when the alternative is a total economic collapse, i'm willing to forgo my principles
Image
Dan Lambskin
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeLucky Ladders ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 10225
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: bail out failed

Postby RugbyD » Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:19 pm

Dan Lambskin wrote:looks like Congress continues to fiddle while America burns

so here's a question to everyone in favor of letting them fail...are you in favor of another bank bailout that's going to be needed?

Help the Detroit 3 for sake of banks

Help the Detroit 3 for sake of banks
BY TODD SPANGLER and JUSTIN HYDE • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • December 5, 2008

Why? Detroit's automakers -- General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC -- and their suppliers have about $1 trillion worth of exposure in the financial markets by some estimates, and their collapse would send shock waves through the investment community.
Investment firm J.P. Morgan said this month that GM, Ford and their financing arms account for up to 10% of the junk bond market -- investments that could be worth nothing should the companies fail. GM reported that the Detroit Three automakers account for about $700 billion of outstanding debt.
Late Thursday, Democratic congressional leaders sent a letter to President George W. Bush...
[article continues]

All this debt is marked at a severe discount to par already, so the effect on any bank's capital base is going to be small. The concern as is presented is overblown.

The 10% figure is probably notional value. In terms of the mark-to-market valuse that is on investors' balance sheets, it's far less than 10%.

I remain in favor of a Chapter 11 proceeding.

Gettelfinger is scared to death of Chp11 b/c he knows the UAW will have to take more pain than in a restructuring outside of Chp11. The UAW would have to give what really only amounts to a potential clawback of above-market compensation in the form of benefits that would make legacy benefits dependent on the success of the company.

And I'm really getting sick of hearing how much the UAW is "giving up". With the cooperation of idiot Big 3 execs, the UAW worked labor deals that were great examples of greed, excess, and stupidity. At the height of the industry, they were able to lock in pay and benefits that would only work if the worst case scenario was that the Big 3 kept up performance barely less than the performance at that time. All that's happening here is that their aggregate compensation is being brought back down to earth where it should be. Its better than being out of a job like so many in the financial sector. Gettelfinger keeps saying that if banks get bailouts then the auto industry should too. The difference he'll never speak of is that an auto bailout saves his workers. Financial companies had to axe six or seven figures worth of jobs before bailouts were ever a thought.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Re: bail out failed

Postby Madison » Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:57 pm

Dan Lambskin wrote:so here's a question to everyone in favor of letting them fail...are you in favor of another bank bailout that's going to be needed?


There's a big difference in banks and the auto industry.

Banks were forced to give out bad loans by the government. Not fully an excuse for them, but that does play into it a bit. "Perfect" scenario is for the government to buy the properties that are being foreclosed on (pay the bank balance to the bank) and then resell that property when they can to recoup the money the paid the bank(s). The government takes a small financial hit over the long term due to lost interest, value of the dollar going down, etc. But no real solid hit or anything. At the same time, remove the government pressure on the banks to give out bad loans and allow the banks to only give the loans they are comfortable giving (like any business, by golly) and then the banks are fully responsible if any of those loans go south. And if they wind up broke, then it's of no fault but their own and allow them to go belly up. And yes, that will mean less loans given out, but if people don't have good credit and/or income, they shouldn't be approved for loans to begin with. The only reason they were approved before is due to the government pressure, which in turn helped the banks go south. So a little help isn't a big problem for me.

The auto industry on the other hand is simply poorly run and managed, and done all by themselves. An influx of cash isn't going to solve their problem. So I disagree with any kind of bailout for the auto industry. People are trying to call it a "loan", but seeing as how it won't fix anything, there's no way they will be able to repay that loan because of their poor business management, it's just a temporary stay of execution. So it's just flushing money down the toilet. Now if the government were to buy GM (for example) and retool the company to make it profitable, I could see the argument there, but just give them more cash to burn? Nah, that's just silly.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: bail out failed

Postby Dan Lambskin » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm

RugbyD wrote:
Dan Lambskin wrote:looks like Congress continues to fiddle while America burns

so here's a question to everyone in favor of letting them fail...are you in favor of another bank bailout that's going to be needed?

Help the Detroit 3 for sake of banks

Help the Detroit 3 for sake of banks
BY TODD SPANGLER and JUSTIN HYDE • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • December 5, 2008

Why? Detroit's automakers -- General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC -- and their suppliers have about $1 trillion worth of exposure in the financial markets by some estimates, and their collapse would send shock waves through the investment community.
Investment firm J.P. Morgan said this month that GM, Ford and their financing arms account for up to 10% of the junk bond market -- investments that could be worth nothing should the companies fail. GM reported that the Detroit Three automakers account for about $700 billion of outstanding debt.
Late Thursday, Democratic congressional leaders sent a letter to President George W. Bush...
[article continues]

All this debt is marked at a severe discount to par already, so the effect on any bank's capital base is going to be small. The concern as is presented is overblown.

The 10% figure is probably notional value. In terms of the mark-to-market valuse that is on investors' balance sheets, it's far less than 10%.

I remain in favor of a Chapter 11 proceeding.

Gettelfinger is scared to death of Chp11 b/c he knows the UAW will have to take more pain than in a restructuring outside of Chp11. The UAW would have to give what really only amounts to a potential clawback of above-market compensation in the form of benefits that would make legacy benefits dependent on the success of the company.

And I'm really getting sick of hearing how much the UAW is "giving up". With the cooperation of idiot Big 3 execs, the UAW worked labor deals that were great examples of greed, excess, and stupidity. At the height of the industry, they were able to lock in pay and benefits that would only work if the worst case scenario was that the Big 3 kept up performance barely less than the performance at that time. All that's happening here is that their aggregate compensation is being brought back down to earth where it should be. Its better than being out of a job like so many in the financial sector. Gettelfinger keeps saying that if banks get bailouts then the auto industry should too. The difference he'll never speak of is that an auto bailout saves his workers. Financial companies had to axe six or seven figures worth of jobs before bailouts were ever a thought.


Rugby...i'm far from an economist, but is the gist of what you're saying that every loan to an Automotive company or supplier or subsupplier and dealership is already written off as a loss?

if so i have a hard time believing that. seems to me there's a lot of outstanding loans out there, but again, not my area of expertise

i also have a hard time believing that bankruptcy snowball rolling down from GM to their supply base who files chapter 11 to their supply base who files chapter 11 and so on is going be good for the economy

Madison wrote:
Dan Lambskin wrote:so here's a question to everyone in favor of letting them fail...are you in favor of another bank bailout that's going to be needed?


There's a big difference in banks and the auto industry.

Banks were forced to give out bad loans by the government. Not fully an excuse for them, but that does play into it a bit. "Perfect" scenario is for the government to buy the properties that are being foreclosed on (pay the bank balance to the bank) and then resell that property when they can to recoup the money the paid the bank(s). The government takes a small financial hit over the long term due to lost interest, value of the dollar going down, etc. But no real solid hit or anything. At the same time, remove the government pressure on the banks to give out bad loans and allow the banks to only give the loans they are comfortable giving (like any business, by golly) and then the banks are fully responsible if any of those loans go south. And if they wind up broke, then it's of no fault but their own and allow them to go belly up. And yes, that will mean less loans given out, but if people don't have good credit and/or income, they shouldn't be approved for loans to begin with. The only reason they were approved before is due to the government pressure, which in turn helped the banks go south. So a little help isn't a big problem for me.

The auto industry on the other hand is simply poorly run and managed, and done all by themselves. An influx of cash isn't going to solve their problem. So I disagree with any kind of bailout for the auto industry. People are trying to call it a "loan", but seeing as how it won't fix anything, there's no way they will be able to repay that loan because of their poor business management, it's just a temporary stay of execution. So it's just flushing money down the toilet. Now if the government were to buy GM (for example) and retool the company to make it profitable, I could see the argument there, but just give them more cash to burn? Nah, that's just silly.


so by that rationale had the government not made the banks loan people more money than they could afford and make them live within their means, people could still afford to buy cars and instead of sales being down by 50% the Big 3 could keep on operating until 2010 when many of the cost cutting measure they have already begun to impliment begin to take effect. ;-)

unfortunately it looks like enough of congress and America share your point of view, so we may get to find out if the sky really is falling...or maybe they'll come to their senses and determine that the risk of loaning out $X Billion (where X=whatever the lasted number they've come up with is) to see if they can retool and become self sustaning outweighs the risk of a bankruptcy which will lead to total disaster
Image
Dan Lambskin
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeLucky Ladders ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 10225
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: bail out failed

Postby RugbyD » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:43 pm

Dan Lambskin wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
Dan Lambskin wrote:looks like Congress continues to fiddle while America burns

so here's a question to everyone in favor of letting them fail...are you in favor of another bank bailout that's going to be needed?

Help the Detroit 3 for sake of banks


All this debt is marked at a severe discount to par already, so the effect on any bank's capital base is going to be small. The concern as is presented is overblown.

The 10% figure is probably notional value. In terms of the mark-to-market valuse that is on investors' balance sheets, it's far less than 10%.

I remain in favor of a Chapter 11 proceeding.

Gettelfinger is scared to death of Chp11 b/c he knows the UAW will have to take more pain than in a restructuring outside of Chp11. The UAW would have to give what really only amounts to a potential clawback of above-market compensation in the form of benefits that would make legacy benefits dependent on the success of the company.

And I'm really getting sick of hearing how much the UAW is "giving up". With the cooperation of idiot Big 3 execs, the UAW worked labor deals that were great examples of greed, excess, and stupidity. At the height of the industry, they were able to lock in pay and benefits that would only work if the worst case scenario was that the Big 3 kept up performance barely less than the performance at that time. All that's happening here is that their aggregate compensation is being brought back down to earth where it should be. Its better than being out of a job like so many in the financial sector. Gettelfinger keeps saying that if banks get bailouts then the auto industry should too. The difference he'll never speak of is that an auto bailout saves his workers. Financial companies had to axe six or seven figures worth of jobs before bailouts were ever a thought.


Rugby...i'm far from an economist, but is the gist of what you're saying that every loan to an Automotive company or supplier or subsupplier and dealership is already written off as a loss?

if so i have a hard time believing that. seems to me there's a lot of outstanding loans out there, but again, not my area of expertise

i also have a hard time believing that bankruptcy snowball rolling down from GM to their supply base who files chapter 11 to their supply base who files chapter 11 and so on is going be good for the economy.

Its not that it's written off, it's just marked to market. Marking a bond or loan from 100 down to it current price will affect the capital base of the bank. For example, GM's 7.25% 2013 bonds are bid at 25. This means that a bank holding this bond has already taken 75% of the pain of GM blowing up via the mark-to-market effect on the bank's capital base. Same goes for any institution holding this debt. Chrysler's senior secured bank loans (debt backed by collateral) were bid a 36.2 this morning, but they're brobably less now. Two suppliers, Progressive Moulded and Tinnerman Palnut, are bid at 15 and 25, respectively, though those are thin markets and would probably transact lower.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Re: bail out failed

Postby Dan Lambskin » Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:16 pm

RugbyD wrote:
Dan Lambskin wrote:
RugbyD wrote:All this debt is marked at a severe discount to par already, so the effect on any bank's capital base is going to be small. The concern as is presented is overblown.

The 10% figure is probably notional value. In terms of the mark-to-market valuse that is on investors' balance sheets, it's far less than 10%.

I remain in favor of a Chapter 11 proceeding.

Gettelfinger is scared to death of Chp11 b/c he knows the UAW will have to take more pain than in a restructuring outside of Chp11. The UAW would have to give what really only amounts to a potential clawback of above-market compensation in the form of benefits that would make legacy benefits dependent on the success of the company.

And I'm really getting sick of hearing how much the UAW is "giving up". With the cooperation of idiot Big 3 execs, the UAW worked labor deals that were great examples of greed, excess, and stupidity. At the height of the industry, they were able to lock in pay and benefits that would only work if the worst case scenario was that the Big 3 kept up performance barely less than the performance at that time. All that's happening here is that their aggregate compensation is being brought back down to earth where it should be. Its better than being out of a job like so many in the financial sector. Gettelfinger keeps saying that if banks get bailouts then the auto industry should too. The difference he'll never speak of is that an auto bailout saves his workers. Financial companies had to axe six or seven figures worth of jobs before bailouts were ever a thought.


Rugby...i'm far from an economist, but is the gist of what you're saying that every loan to an Automotive company or supplier or subsupplier and dealership is already written off as a loss?

if so i have a hard time believing that. seems to me there's a lot of outstanding loans out there, but again, not my area of expertise

i also have a hard time believing that bankruptcy snowball rolling down from GM to their supply base who files chapter 11 to their supply base who files chapter 11 and so on is going be good for the economy.

Its not that it's written off, it's just marked to market. Marking a bond or loan from 100 down to it current price will affect the capital base of the bank. For example, GM's 7.25% 2013 bonds are bid at 25. This means that a bank holding this bond has already taken 75% of the pain of GM blowing up via the mark-to-market effect on the bank's capital base. Same goes for any institution holding this debt. Chrysler's senior secured bank loans (debt backed by collateral) were bid a 36.2 this morning, but they're brobably less now. Two suppliers, Progressive Moulded and Tinnerman Palnut, are bid at 15 and 25, respectively, though those are thin markets and would probably transact lower.


OK i think i follow now...but it seems to me if all those companies were to default on that remaining current market value that's still a pretty good chunk of debt potentially not getting paid back, even under a Chapter 11

from my limited knowledge of Chapter 11, it allows the company to keep operating while they restructure. do they basiclly defer payment to their creditors (or pay some lesser amount)...anyway, that's the part i'm not quite clear on. and if they cant become viable again, the creditors take over? i'm not sure what these banks plan to do with a bunch of automotive factories...i doubt they want to run them, and not sure who they'd get to buy them (the Chinese and Indian upstart Auto-companies maybe?)
Image
Dan Lambskin
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeLucky Ladders ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 10225
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: bail out failed

Postby RugbyD » Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:33 pm

Dan Lambskin wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
Dan Lambskin wrote:
Rugby...i'm far from an economist, but is the gist of what you're saying that every loan to an Automotive company or supplier or subsupplier and dealership is already written off as a loss?

if so i have a hard time believing that. seems to me there's a lot of outstanding loans out there, but again, not my area of expertise

i also have a hard time believing that bankruptcy snowball rolling down from GM to their supply base who files chapter 11 to their supply base who files chapter 11 and so on is going be good for the economy.

Its not that it's written off, it's just marked to market. Marking a bond or loan from 100 down to it current price will affect the capital base of the bank. For example, GM's 7.25% 2013 bonds are bid at 25. This means that a bank holding this bond has already taken 75% of the pain of GM blowing up via the mark-to-market effect on the bank's capital base. Same goes for any institution holding this debt. Chrysler's senior secured bank loans (debt backed by collateral) were bid a 36.2 this morning, but they're brobably less now. Two suppliers, Progressive Moulded and Tinnerman Palnut, are bid at 15 and 25, respectively, though those are thin markets and would probably transact lower.


OK i think i follow now...but it seems to me if all those companies were to default on that remaining current market value that's still a pretty good chunk of debt potentially not getting paid back, even under a Chapter 11

from my limited knowledge of Chapter 11, it allows the company to keep operating while they restructure. do they basiclly defer payment to their creditors (or pay some lesser amount)...anyway, that's the part i'm not quite clear on. and if they cant become viable again, the creditors take over? i'm not sure what these banks plan to do with a bunch of automotive factories...i doubt they want to run them, and not sure who they'd get to buy them (the Chinese and Indian upstart Auto-companies maybe?)

There is definitely the potential for more losses on debt if they go Chp11, but it isn't a cataclysmic amount due to the high markdowns already taken. There will be some recovery relative to current prices for some levels of the debt, whether by the collateral securing it or some equity exchanged for it in a restructuring, or a simple take-out payment of some small amount of par. There will be some zeros too, but again, the holders of those are already most of the way there.

These companies, maybe Chrysler excepted, can be run as successful businesses after a serious Chp11. Even if we assume that a Chp11 process is less aggressive than it needs to be and they fail again in 18-24 months, that doesn't change the fact that they could be run under a proper structure, which would be the job of whoever has cash in 2 years and wants to take a shot at selling into demand for what would be no less than 40% market share. Sounds like a good opportunity to me.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Re: bail out failed

Postby Madison » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:40 pm

Dan Lambskin wrote:so by that rationale had the government not made the banks loan people more money than they could afford and make them live within their means, people could still afford to buy cars and instead of sales being down by 50% the Big 3 could keep on operating until 2010 when many of the cost cutting measure they have already begun to impliment begin to take effect. ;-)

unfortunately it looks like enough of congress and America share your point of view, so we may get to find out if the sky really is falling...or maybe they'll come to their senses and determine that the risk of loaning out $X Billion (where X=whatever the lasted number they've come up with is) to see if they can retool and become self sustaning outweighs the risk of a bankruptcy which will lead to total disaster


You're banking on people buying cars though (as are they), and that's where the problem is. If "X" company doesn't make cars people want to buy, then they won't make sales. Cars are not "must have" products in the sense that no one "has" to go out and buy a brand new vehicle. There are plenty of used vehicles out there of varying mileage. So in an industry where no one "has" to buy a company's products, they should be run with the financial backing in place should they fail.

Look at it in a smaller scale. I open a bar. I hire in 3 bartenders, 10 waitstaff, 2 bouncers, and a live band. No one "has" to come to my bar, but of course I hope they do. If I "have" to have sales that night to meet my payroll for the night, electric bill, and lease, then my business model stinks. I should have at the very least, a year's worth of expenses sitting in the bank before even entertaining the idea of opening a business to begin with. And of course, if things get dicey, then changes and cuts happen to extend the life of that bank account so I have longer to get the club running right before I go broke. If my club is successful, then once 5 years of expenses are sitting comfortably away, at that point I'm probably safe from any kind of downturn in business. That is a safe and secure business model, something the big 3 do not have, but should. It's why I oppose a bailout for them. In all their years of doing business, they never built themselves a reasonable safety net, and that's just downright terrible business management.

And that's not even taking into account that they aren't making cars that people want. If this was an industry wide problem where each and every single car manufacturer was having serious difficulty and facing bankruptcy, then maybe I could have a tiny shred of sympathy, but there are several car manufacturers doing ok or at least well enough to not be begging for taxpayer money to throw away.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: assiquate, rhondalj11, tamaraud1 and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Jul. 23
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Cleveland at Minnesota
(1:10 pm)
Kansas City at Chi White Sox
(2:10 pm)
Cincinnati at Milwaukee
(2:10 pm)
Washington at Colorado
(3:10 pm)
Detroit at Arizona
(3:40 pm)
NY Mets at Seattle
(3:40 pm)
LA Dodgers at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
San Francisco at Philadelphia
(7:05 pm)
Texas at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
Boston at Toronto
(7:07 pm)
Miami at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
Tampa Bay at St. Louis
(7:15 pm)
San Diego at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
Baltimore at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)
Houston at Oakland
(10:05 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact