Abomination

Why would the Canucks trade Kesler? They need to add scoring and trade Edler if anything. (maybe there's some rumor I haven't seen yet, dunno)

They still test for it, don't they? Don't players get sent into some kind of rehab or counseling though instead of suspension?

More on Johan Santana: Jays were one of the teams in attendance. He hasn't been able to build his arm strength back up again yet (hence the reason for the lower velocity), but appeared to be in great shape and stuff was as expected at this point in his recovery.

Yeah, I don't think the chips in the player's clothing would work (at least at the plate, it could be awesome in the field for defense). I'm also not in favor of getting rid of umps, but some sort of google glasses type approach where information could be overlaid for the ump would be really sweet.

Yeah, that's what I was interested in also

Did the telecasts show velocity for any of the pitchers?

If it does, then start a second when the time comes. I don't think we'll be seeing hundreds of pages a game though, at least not until the mtl games.

Honestly one for all the games is probably sufficient.

This is hilarious (Reyes vs Lind in a battle of the beards). I was going to post some of the great quotes, but there's waaaayyyy too many of them! http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/reyes-vs-lind-battle-of-the-blue-jays-beards/

Couple interesting things from today: 1) The Jays are thinking of converting McGuire into a reliever this year 2) Kawasaki will be getting some time in LF this spring in addition to the infield (sounds more serious than just a whim).

Hell no! Way too physically dangerous for the pitchers.

I'd like to see a pitcher having to face at least 3 full batters (or the end of an inning) before they can be taken out of the game. The nonsense we see now where sometimes 4 or 5 pitchers are used in an inning just sucks.

I really like the fans projections in general for playing time. It's what I'm using in my spreadsheet (at least for players that have them available).

I would kind of like to see this in the BBDL Give all non-playoff teams an equal chance at the top pick in the drafts so there's no incentive for losing. We don't have differences in market size though.

Not much better. It suffers from the same problem, just not magnified quite as badly.

The problem with penalizing a team in any way is that it will penalize the player as well. That's in part why we see marginal players right now still looking for work.

It's already essentially capped though

Short of changing up the entire draft system, this should absolutely be done (make the draft more fun too).

The concern for me about Fielder is his weight. If he can keep it under control, he'll probably be playable until the end, but that seems kind of iffy. The last 3 years of that contract they may be paying him to be the world's fattest (but happiest) cheerleader.

Certainly some teams would have an advantage, but unless they were the "dream team" for a player I tend to think the player would follow the money. Heck, let's say the Yankees offered someone 1M instead of the Astros at 1.4M - chances are that the guy is traded before making it to the Bronx anyhow (possibly to the Astros). Also, a prospect may have a better chance of making it to the big leagues faster on a team where there's better chance of a vacancy existing. The problem of some teams having the advantage is certainly the counterpoint to this kind of system though. Maybe give all teams a weighted draft cap bonus based on lack of playoff appearances over the last 10 years or something, along with a bonus for extending their own players into FA years or losing a prime player to FA.

I actually think they SHOULD. Honestly, the haul they could get would likely help their team overall far more than Trout would alone, especially if you consider the money it would also free up in the last few years of the contract he'd get.

It might do that year to year, but overall the big deals signed for free agents by teams like the Yankees would probably funnel more money to the mid market teams than it cost them. It would also mean that their own players might be more likely to sign extensions with the mid market teams since they wouldn't be "taxed". Based on years played for their old team (up to 20%), so 1.6M for each of the 3 years. It doesn't matter though, since as I realized after the players union would never go for it anyway. It wouldn't add complexity though for bonuses or option years, since it would be paid out after each year is completed and those totals were known. This is really the point though. The QO system sucks (no matter how you manipulate it it's going to be unfair for someone), adding millions of extra picks sucks (even though we gamed it well). Giving teams the extra slot bonus to apply to the IFA's and the draft (I think I mentioned that the draft would move to a similar format as IFA rather than people getting picks) would seem to strike a good balance. Teams who can't retain their stars should have an increased opportunity to draft new ones since they could offer more money if they chose to. Teams also wouldn't be rewarded for sucking to the degree they are now. The players shouldn't be hurt at all under the system too. You could also perhaps modify the system so that the calculated bonus was the difference in AAV that the player received. IE, under that system an aging star who switched teams probably wouldn't net the team that lost them anything (and they shouldn't), but the type of key player that a rebuilding team might lose certainly would.

Yeah, I suspect Davidi may have tried to get too cute in his wording and flubbed that up. Really though, I think machine learning techniques are the future of sports analytics.

For all we know, the outputs may have suggested not to go after those other guys, and could ultimately prove correct. We'll just have to wait and see.

Small to mid market teams generally don't sign much in the way of FA's away from big clubs anyway (at least major ones, with the apparent exception of Seattle). The net effect would still be positive for most if not all of those clubs. All players are affected equally by it, so it wouldn't retard any player over any other player. It would simply factor in to the contract they received - which actually brings up the more serious problem that it would never pass the player's union anyway since it would in effect be taking money out of the players pockets and giving it to the owners. The second part of the suggestion probably has a better chance of success, where teams gain extra draft and IFA cap space based on the contract the player signs with a new team (or an extension with their current team). Since the larger FA contracts are usually signed by the larger market teams / teams not rebuilding, it should cause small market and rebuilding teams to have a shot at adding better talent in a free-ish market environment. Boras would love it at any rate, and it would certainly make the draft period a heck of a lot more entertaining when moved away from it's current slot format. Offer any player any amount you wish within your budget.