RPSergio RomoTwins0.4 RFShin-Soo ChooRangers1.5 BenchEric ThamesBrewers1.1 SPRyan YarbroughRays1.7 DHEdwin EncarnacionYankees1.9 2BDee GordonMariners0.3 RPAnibal SanchezNationals1.3 RPNick WittgrenIndians0.6 RPAnthony DeSclafaniReds1.5 3BAsdrubal CabreraRangers0.8 RFGiancarlo StantonYankees0.2 RPJason VargasPhillies1.1 CFChristian YelichBrewers6.1 BenchAustin BarnesDodgers0.5 BenchAdeiny HechavarriaMets0.2 SPChris PaddackPadres1.6 2BKetel MarteDiamondbacks4.8 As the MLB trade deadline approaches, the Miami Marlins are at it again, trading reliever Sergio Romo on Saturday to the Minnesota Twins for a prospect. We shouldn’t be surprised — trades are essential to the Marlins’ identity: The franchise has won two titles, in 1997 and 2003, but hasn’t made the postseason otherwise. Both titles were immediately followed by major trades of key players from the championship runs.Of the top 25 players in Marlins history by wins above replacement,1According to FanGraphs’ measurement. 23 were traded away, and the other two were meant to be traded, according to Miami executives, but the trades fell through. The team’s history is littered with fire sales and payroll slashes. Some deals were merely ill-advised, such as the buy-now moves that sent away key prospects in 2016 — a season that ended with 79 wins. Others were more absurd, such as sending then-prospect Trevor Williams to Pittsburgh as compensation for a pitching coach who was let go by Miami after two seasons.This got us thinking: Could you make an entire lineup of Marlins trade castaways? An entire roster even?As it turns out, you can. And it’s a fairly good team. A 25-man roster of players who, at one point in their careers, were traded from Miami would project to win at least 90 games over the course of this season, based on the WAR those players have accumulated with their current squads. Through Monday, the team would be roughly 61-43 and in line for a wild card. Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, Fangraphs You could even name a manager in Craig Counsell, who scored the winning run in Game 7 of the 1997 World Series and was traded to the Dodgers in 1999 for a player to be named later.2That player would be minor leaguer Ryan Moskau.We used the current WAR of the former Marlins to construct this lineup, with some slight adjustments for injury: We would start Giancarlo Stanton, even though Cameron Maybin and Jake Marisnick have had better seasons so far, and Nathan Eovaldi, who could be replaced by Anthony DeSclafani in the rotation and Steve Cishek on the roster. And we moved some players out of their regular positions, including stashing the aforementioned DeSclafani in the bullpen and putting regular right fielder Christian Yelich in center field to make room for Stanton.That 25-man roster doesn’t even include two of the most notable traded-away players: future Hall of Famer Miguel Cabrera, who is at -0.4 WAR for the season, and two-time All-Star Andrew Miller, sitting at -0.1 WAR.3The other active players left off are outfielder Josh Naylor and relievers Cishek, David Phelps, Dillon Peters, Dan Jennings and Kyle Barraclough It’s also worth noting that this roster isn’t one the Marlins could realistically have if they had just stood pat: Some of the players on this list were at one point acquired by the Marlins in a trade for another player on the list: Dee Gordon, for instance, was acquired in a 2014 trade that sent four current major leaguers to the Dodgers, including Kiké Hernandez.The total WAR from this 25-man roster, from their 2019 performances with non-Marlins teams, is 30.3, breaking down to 16.6 for position players and 13.7 for pitchers. The hitting WAR roughly equates to that of the Brewers, and the pitching WAR is close to that of the Astros. Both groups of former Marlins would rank in the top 10 of baseball. Using the winning percentage expected from a replacement-level team,4Roughly 29 percent. we can extrapolate the former Marlins’ WAR to 162 games from the 104 the Marlins have played through Monday. Without adjusting for playing time, we find that the team would project to 95 wins over a 162-game season.5This team would have fewer plate appearances than expected for an MLB team but slightly more innings pitched.If you think all of these trades should have netted the Marlins good players in return, well, they’re last in the National League by four games and have a farm system consistently ranked in the bottom 10 of the majors (though that may be improving).The Marlins aren’t the only team that could fill out a roster of traded-away players: The Seattle Mariners have executed big trades in recent years. A roster assembled of the very best of once-traded Mariners, aided by recent trades of Edwin Encarnacion and Jay Bruce, can compete with the Marlins.6The Mariners’ team has accumulated more WAR this season, but the Marlins have far fewer plate appearances. The Pirates similarly have a potentially solid team of cast-offs, if not quite as good, but they don’t have a catcher (unless someone drags David Ross out of retirement.) BenchJake MarisnickAstros1.4 RPJason VargasPhillies1.1 RPShawn KelleyRangers0.5 SPDomingo GermanYankees1.7 1BJustin BourAngels-0.1 RPAndrew HeaneyAngels0.5 RPEmilio PaganRays0.8 LFMarcell OzunaCardinals1.7 SPMichael PinedaTwins1.8 CManny PinaBrewers0.8 The Mariners also let go of some major playersHypothetical roster of former members of the Seattle Mariners, projected to win at least 90 games based on their 2019 performances through July 29 CFBen GamelBrewers0.7 RPAlex ColomeWhite Sox0.5 The Marlins traded an entire playoff-caliber rosterHypothetical roster of former members of the Miami Marlins, projected to win at least 90 games based on their 2019 performances through July 29 RPPaul FryOrioles0.6 SPTrevor WilliamsPirates1.1 BenchCameron MaybinYankees1.2 LFChris TaylorDodgers1.3 1BCarlos SantanaIndians3.0 SSEnrique HernandezDodgers1.3 Seattle has 50 eligible active players for its all-trade team, so half can be left off the roster; the Marlins have “only” 34. That’s a major difference: The Mariners’ current team is built from their sheer number of trades. Sure, they’d love to have Ketel Marte, but they got Mitch Haniger and Jean Segura, both 2018 All-Stars, in return.The Yankees could also assemble a full roster of players they traded away, though it would project to a sub-.500 team. So it’s definitely hard to argue that they’d be better had they not made those trades. The Marlins, meanwhile, would almost certainly rather have Chris Paddack or Luis Castillo on their team right now than the three months of Fernando Rodney in 2016 or the two seasons of Dan Straily they received in return. Of the five players sent to Florida in the Cabrera trade, Maybin contributed the most value with just 2.3 total WAR in his stint with Miami — and four years later, all the players the Marlins had received were gone. Miami got a disappointing return in the 12-player 2012 trade with the Blue Jays; none of the prospects the Marlins received for Jose Reyes, Josh Johnson, Mark Buehrle, etc. remain with the franchise or made a major impact. The recent trades under new CEO Derek Jeter have netted some prospects and are probably too early to truly be graded, but they’re still not enough to push Miami’s farm system into the top tier.Of course, there’s another reason the Marlins are so accomplished at trading stars: money. Most trades for the small-market Marlins, last in baseball in attendance by a large margin, have been aimed at cutting costs.The Marlins probably couldn’t have fielded their all-trade team because they couldn’t afford it. The 2019 contracts, according to Spotrac, for the 25 traded-away players total $134 million,7That number doesn’t count Cabrera’s $30 million or Miller’s $11 million contracts since both players have been below replacement and don’t make the top 25. nearly double of the team’s opening-day payroll of $72 million.Check out our latest MLB predictions. RPFreddy PeraltaBrewers0.8 Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, Fangraphs SPWade MileyAstros1.8 CJ.T. RealmutoPhillies3.0 RPJ.A. HappYankees0.9 BenchJay BrucePhillies1.2 PositionPlayerCurrent TeamWAR BenchLuis RengifoAngels0.6 SPPablo LopezMarlins1.6 SPLuis CastilloReds2.3 SPJames PaxtonYankees1.7 RPSam DysonGiants1.1 RPEdwin DiazMets0.4 3BColin MoranPirates0.8 SPNathan EovaldiRed Sox-0.2 PositionPlayerCurrent TeamWAR SSJean SeguraPhillies2.3 RPYusmeiro PetitAthletics0.7
Apple, which initially filed suit against Qualcomm in January 2017, argued that it essentially pays Qualcomm twice, first by purchasing processors and then by paying royalty fees. The tech giant said it should pay fees based only on the cost of the wireless chip inside its iPhones. Apple partners Foxconn and Pegatron, which assemble its devices, agree and have joined the lawsuit. Qualcomm countered that it isn’t a monopoly and said its technology is more than modems so it should be compensated based on the selling price of the phone itself.”In the summer of 2016, Qualcomm went too far,” Cordell said during Tuesday’s opening arguments. “Apple was asked questions by the government. Apple answered the questions, and that enraged Qualcomm.” Then Apple “had the audacity to buy products” from another company, which also “enraged Qualcomm,” he said. At stake in the case are tens of billions of dollars. Apple’s manufacturing partners want a refund of $9 billion for allegedly overpaying royalties since 2013. Under antitrust law, that amount could be tripled. Qualcomm wants damages of its own for breach of contract, though it hasn’t detailed the amount. An even bigger concern for Qualcomm: whether it will have to change its entire business model, collecting far lower royalties based on the price of its chips, not the phones they’re in.The contract manufacturers paid Qualcomm $31 billion for chips from 2010 to 2016 and overpaid $7 billion to $9 billion, Richard Doren of Gibson Dunn said Tuesday during opening arguments on behalf of Foxconn, Pegatron, Wistron and Compal. The overpayment is what could have been tripled under antitrust law. “Why didn’t the contract manufacturers step up?” Doren said. “The reality is they didn’t dare. They are literally between a rock and a hard place” — between their customers and Qualcomm demands. “It’s a delicate and difficult balance. But if you don’t maintain it, you will not survive, and so they stayed quiet,” he said. For consumers, the battle could have resulted in iPhone connectivity speeds that can’t match up to those of Android devices. Apple’s current modem supplier, Intel, doesn’t yet have a 5G chip ready. Qualcomm is the only option for handset makers that want to tap into the ultrafast wireless network this year. We may not see a 5G iPhone until 2020 or even 2021. And if Qualcomm and Apple didn’t resolve their problems, it was unlikely Apple would have Qualcomm modems in its iPhones again anytime soon. Originally published at 10:39 a.m. PTUpdate at 11:11 a.m.: Adds comments from contract manufacturers’ attorneyUpdate at 3:45 p.m.: Adds details about Qualcomm opening argument and settlement. Apple, Qualcomm go head-to-head — with billions at stake • Now playing: Watch this: Apple 4 Aug 31 • iPhone 11, Apple Watch 5 and more: The final rumors Apple and Qualcomm settle licensing dispute amid trial’s opening arguments Apple v. Qualcomm jury includes pilot, former MLB pitcher, retired nurse Apple, Qualcomm head into latest legal battle, with billions at stake What the Apple-Qualcomm battle means for your next iPhone Qualcomm can’t get back the billions it paid Apple, judge rules Cordell noted that 20% of mobile standard essentials patents come from Qualcomm, while 40% come from Ericsson, Nokia, LG, Huawei and InterDigital combined. Those companies together get paid royalties of $3.34 per iPhone, he said. Qualcomm demands $13, Cordell said. “Does that make any sense?” Cordell says. “Is that fair and reasonable?”While Cordell said Qualcomm asked for royalties of $13 per iPhone, Apple testimony during an FTC trial against Qualcomm in January revealed that discounts lowered the Qualcomm licensing fee to $7.50 per iPhone. During the trial, Apple said it should pay only $1.50 per device, a 5% fee for the cost of each $30 modem used in an iPhone. Chesler, meanwhile, argued that Apple’s contract manufacturers were fine with its licensing terms for about 20 years before Apple instructed them to stop payments to Qualcomm.”After all that time, almost 20 years, in April of 2017, all four of the contract manufacturers stopped paying anything for our technology,” he said. At the end of 2018, they owed Qualcomm about $8 billion. “In fact, they have not paid us a dime in the two years since then. Literally billions of dollars.”He noted that because of the battle, Qualcomm’s “stock has plummeted. People have been laid off. Research and development to develop new technology have been canceled.”Duking it outApple has long made the processors that act as the brains of its iPhones, but the company has relied on Qualcomm’s modems to connect its devices to cell networks. From the iPhone 4S in 2011 to the iPhone X in 2017, Qualcomm was the sole provider of 4G chips that helped Apple’s devices access Verizon, AT&T and other wireless services.Qualcomm is the world’s biggest provider of mobile chips, and it created technology that’s essential for connecting phones to cellular networks. The company derives a significant portion of its revenue from licensing those inventions to more than 300 device makers, mostly handset companies. Some patent holders license their intellectual property on an individual basis; Qualcomm licenses all its patents as a group. For a set fee, a device maker gets to use all of Qualcomm’s technology.Because Qualcomm owns patents related to 3G, 4G and 5G phones — as well as other features like software — any handset makers building a device that connects to a network must pay it a licensing fee, even if they don’t use Qualcomm’s chips. Apple licenses Qualcomm’s technology through its manufacturers, like Foxconn, rather than purchasing a license of its own. See also See All Qualcomm 4G LTE Foxconn Apple 3:14 Tags Aug 31 • Your phone screen is gross. Here’s how to clean it Phones Components Tech Industry Qualcomm’s no license, no chips policy — in which it wouldn’t provide processors to a phone maker until the company signed a licensing agreement — meant it effectively charged Apple twice for its patents, said Ruffin Cordell, an attorney with Fish & Richardson who’s representing Apple.”No license, no chips allows them to double dip,” he said during opening arguments. “They get paid twice for the same product. … The other thing it does is allow them to charge patent royalties that are far in excess of that fair and reasonable level.”Qualcomm’s lawyer, meanwhile, argued during his opening statement that the chipmaker was the one harmed in the situation and that it commanded higher royalty fees because its technology was more valuable than its peers.”The reason they pay us more is because what we created is worth more,” said Evan Chesler of the firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore.Monday marked the start of the five-week, $27 billion trial that was expected to determine whether Qualcomm operates a smartphone modem chip monopoly that charges too much in licensing fees. The jury trial was being argued before US District Court Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Southern District of California in San Diego. The outcome could’ve affected what wireless networks your phone taps into. But Qualcomm attorney Chesler hadn’t yet finished his opening arguments when news broke that the two companies had reached a settlement. (Check out our full report on that here.)Licensing spatQualcomm engaged in four anticompetitive acts, Cordell said Tuesday. It had a policy of not licensing patents to competitors, which he said broke Qualcomm’s vow to the standards body. Qualcomm’s no license, no chips strategy made customers pay twice, Cordell said, while its exclusivity agreements locked out competition. Qualcomm’s agreements with companies also included obstruction/gag clauses that reinforced Qualcomm’s “illegal scheme.””This case is about the fact that Qualcomm has used its monopoly … to set unfair prices and stifle competition and dictate terms to some of the biggest, most powerful companies in the world, that rational companies would never agree to in a million years,” Cordell said. From 2010 to 2016, the iPhone maker paid Qualcomm $16.1 billion for chips and $7.23 billion for licensing fees. But the amount should have been much lower, Apple said. No license, no chips allows them to double dip. Ruffin Cordell, an attorney with Fish & Richardson who’s representing Apple Share your voice Aug 31 • Best places to sell your used electronics in 2019 Comments reading • Apple, Qualcomm make opening arguments just before settlement is unveiled Aug 31 • iPhone XR vs. iPhone 8 Plus: Which iPhone should you buy? Lawyers for Apple, its contract manufacturers and Qualcomm made their pitches Tuesday morning to a jury about why their side was right in the licensing dispute. But before the opening arguments even finished, the parties had reached a settlement. So marked the end of a battle that had the potential to change the mobile industry. Apple had accused Qualcomm of anticompetitive practices that have raised chip prices, restricted competition and hurt customer choice. Qualcomm had countered that Apple’s iPhone wouldn’t be possible without its technology, and it deserved to be paid for its innovation. Apple and its contract manufacturers have paid Qualcomm billions of dollars for chips and licensing, but the bill should have been much lower, their attorneys said Tuesday in opening arguments at the trial that was to determine the future of Qualcomm’s licensing business.
The Netherlands-based company has named the device “Readius,” and plans to sell the gadget starting in mid-2008. The price is not yet specified, but Polymer Vision´s chief executive Karl McGoldrick says it will be comparable to a high-end cell phone.The Readius´ e-paper screen displays text and images in black-and-white (16 greyscales) that look almost like they have been printed on paper. McGoldrick has also mentioned that Polymer Vision is planning to develop a cell phone with an 8-inch color display that can show video, which will hopefully be ready within five years.The Readius connects to the Internet through the third generation (3G) cell phone network, which offers ultra-fast data speeds, similar to WiFi for laptops. Users set up their e-mail accounts and favorite news sources, podcasts, and blog feeds from a PC, and then the data is automatically updated on the Readius. The device supports standard POP3 and IMAP for e-mail servers, and uses Micro SD High Capacity storage for quick and easy access to e-books and other information. The storage is flexible, with the first model providing up to 8GB.The Readius can also play MP3s and audio books. It has just 8 “SimpleTouch” buttons, and a keyboard may be added to future models. The battery life is up to six times longer than on other cell phones, offering 30 hours of continuous reading.”We are taking e-reading and bringing it to the mobile phone,” McGoldrick says. “You get the large display of e-reading, the super battery life of e-reading, and the high-end connectivity … and the form factor and weight of a mobile phone.”Polymer Vision hopes that the Readius will offer some competition for Apple´s iPhone and Amazon´s Kindle. The company is currently talking with retailers and mobile operators, and suggests that the device offers the chance for operators to make a profit from increased data storage.Polymer Vision has hinted at the coming of such a device for the past two years, which it claims “is generations ahead of anything else out there today.” Now, the company hopes that the mobile e-reader will be poised for an eventful summer.via: ReutersMore information: www.polymervision.com This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. The Readius´ e-paper display rolls out of a normal-sized cell phone. Image credit: Polymer Vision. Polymer Vision, a spin-off company from Philips, has recently announced the first cell phone to offer a roll-up e-display for reading your favorite Web sites. The 5-inch (13-cm)-diagonal display rolls out of a normal-sized phone when users wish to check their e-mail or read the news. Citation: ‘Readius’ Cell Phone First to Incorporate Foldable E-Display (2008, January 23) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2008-01-readius-cell-incorporate-foldable-e-display.html