Dick_Pole

I'll be having intense stock market withdrawal. No trading on the TSX until the 29th. Thankfully the US closes for Christmas today and things will be back to normal on Monday so at least I have that fix.

Brett Lawrie versus Jonathan-Paul Arencibia. Who are you taking in a one on one contest in: 1. Arm wrestling 2. Beer pong 3. Jeopardy 4. Picking up chicks at the bar

Funny that we have the identical thought process but polar opposite conclusions. Since these guys don't face any negative consequences for this, monetizing it either unofficially like this douchebag is doing or officially through the MLB is only going to increase stupid and/or controversial selections because they will be the ones facing the biggest questions. The BBWAA member who votes the top 10 players by WAR will get no spotlight because his thought process makes perfect and obvious sense.

I guess these HOF votes need to go to mandatory anonymity. You lose your right to vote if you purposely make your choices public. These writers - since they know there are no actual negative consequences for their actions - are using these ballots as an opportunity to virtue signal or attention whore. No one in their right mind TRULY believes that Bonds doesn't merit being in the HOF. Or if he does, send in a blank ballot because no one else does.

The front office will know better than anyone else if Guerrero has a competitive spirit or if he is going to mail it in as soon as he has a big contract. Or is a significant injury risk. If they sign him to a long term deal, then I trust that it's the best move they can make given the information they have. If they don't sign him to a deal, then I trust that it's the best move they can make given the information they have. I get a chuckle in reading some of the posts here about what each person thinks the team should sign him for. Signing a contract this big is a massive amount of risk no matter who it is and every person on here lacks the information necessary to make such a decision. Literally just pure guessing to pass the time.

Really? The NBA? Silver outlined a few gimmicks last year that were all wildly scorned and were not adopted except that asinine play-in tournament to see who has the honour of getting trounced 4-0 or 4-1 by the top seed. The game has changed but that's due to smarter front offices/coaches, not rule changes itself. IIRC the last really major change was the addition of the three point line. NFL...same. Game has transitioned to a passing league but not thanks to any rule changes, other than the ones passed for obvious safety reasons. The only league which has really changed itself drastically has been the NHL - major divisional realignment, the shootout, the participation point at the end of regulation for ties, elimination of center ice offside, tinkering with what is and isn't a penalty both officially in the rule book and unofficially by telling the refs to back off or start calling something more. I suppose all leagues adopted some form instant replay and coach challenges but that should be an obvious move facilitated by technology.

Hey I grew up in the perfect time. Old enough to know a life before the internet and smartphones, young enough to know how to use them. Old enough to be able to have bought a house and build wealth, young enough to have a good chance at being alive when significant life extension technologies start to kick in. Old enough to know that some of the climate change hysteria is ********, young enough to know that not all of the climate change hysteria is ********. Old enough to know what an actual good front office building a sustainable winner looks like - Gillick - and not fall for the crap the Rays are pulling.

I suppose I should reword it and say I don't mind 80's level of positional replacements. Back when teams held 10-11 pitchers and 14-15 position players. Basically I want the game to return to how it was when I first saw it. Pitchers who could throw complete games once in a while and were good enough to get outs even in the *gasp* THIRD and FOURTH times around the order. In the later innings when games are close and the top relievers are in, teams try to combat that with pinch hitters. Lots and lots of stolen base attempts, potentially facilitated by pinch runners. And a bullpen where you could actually name all of the pitchers in it off the top of your head. I could deal without the bunt attempts.

I like the tone of your first paragraph. Let me rephrase it to the problems I perceive to be the worst problems would magically disappear. I'm fine with what you say in the second paragraph. A hard no to the third. I think you underestimate the value of a 9 inning game to TV deals. What you're suggesting is to take away four commercial breaks. 20% less ad time is not going to be a selling point.

I wouldn't mind the idea of more substitutions on the position player side, but we know that if rosters are expanded, teams are just going to pile more relievers. It would need to separate pitching from position player roster spots.

I started watching baseball as a kid in the late 80's. Ozzie Smith was a legend. The couple games a year you could watch him on CBS on Saturday afternoons you definitely would tune in. One of the few players who you'd really want a baseball card from. I stopped caring much about card collecting years ago but I can't imagine an Andruw Jones card would sell for much more than common cards other than his rookie. So I see two issues working against Jones here, just from my perspective. First, he's just another good ball player I saw during my adult years as opposed to Ozzie Smith who has legendary status - something that a lot of people in the 35-45 range probably feel. Second, Smith came in an era where there wasn't a lot of good ball players. Like people have mentioned Jones got lost in the shuffle among all the high offensive stats. He also hasn't been SUCH a standout defensive player where defense is basically his brand name. If he had done some unnecessary Simone Biles s*** on the field, he'd probably rank a lot higher in a lot of people's minds.

No, no, no a million times no to the expanded rosters. Many of the problems related to baseball and all of these lame half assed fixes like runners on 2B in extra innings is related to teams churning through a million jobber relievers throughout a season. Under no circumstances do I want to facilitate that. Force teams to roster only 10 pitchers and limit the amount of pitchers they can call up and send down during the season and watch all of these issues with three outcome baseball magically disappear. I would say my idea would get PA support because instead of a bunch of guys getting MLB minimum salaries for a few weeks and getting released before they hit arbitration, teams would actually have to draft, develop and PAY pitchers to have Rich Gossage roles.

Isn't the 29.5 thing a bit of a red herring? I don't see too many teams performing service time manipulation on 24 year olds. It's the age 27-30 years that teams want the most control over on their top prospects. Players who are presumably under the age of 23 when they make their MLB debut. How many Donaldson examples are there really?

No thanks to the contract or no thanks to Detroit? Two different things lol

The problem with Bonds is that he's so alpha that he even dominated taking steroids. I mean who else can take half a syringe of juice and immediately have his head grow to the size of a beachball and develop 27 inch biceps? Gregg Zaun probably juiced ten times what Bonds did but it had little physical impact. Bonds was way too noticeable for the pure blood baseball fans and critics to overlook. But are we really going to blame the man for being very efficient at taking steroids? Things just aren't fair.

Personally I think Stripling/Pearson as #5 is less egregious than Biggio and Espinal as starters. You're right about MIF2, when typing that out I was thinking more along the lines of a trade where one or both are likely shipped out as part of the package.

I'm not sure if a vesting option would apply here. If the option vests - meaning he's healthy enough to pitch to earn it - almost certainly he would rather opt for free agency rather than $15 million. I just don't see a path that makes sense for either a team or himself other than a 1 year contract. A multi-year contract is too risky IMO unless the AAV is super cheap and I don't think he would go for that.

If the Jays can only get one more major acquisition, I would hope it's an infielder. This Jays lineup, plus one more bat, I'd be okay with Stripling/Pearson as 5/6. Not thrilled, but I'd rather have it that way than giving a starting role to Espinal and a deeper rotation. My personal order of preference is: MIF1 SP/RP1 MIF2 SP/RP2 Anything else (OF depth, LH bat) Personally I don't think they get past #2 with a significant improvement over internal options.

Yes, all that stuff is fine. But I'm perfectly fine with not giving Matz 1/18.5 or the four year deal he ended up getting. So it's on to the next target.

Yeah I dunno where all the seller's remorse is coming from on Matz. The guy bookended a pretty mediocre season with a few good starts in April and September to bring up his stats. Comparing Matz and Stripling's career stats you basically have the same pitcher with Stripling coming out slightly ahead and Matz benefitting from recency bias.

Spanky: I don't like this guy, too risky, clickbait rumour. Spanky if the Jays sign him: Great acquisition! Best player ever!

At least Dick Allen missed by just one vote. So it's not that egregious. Ken Boyer, the most WAR of them all, didn't even get four lol. Gil Hodges I can kind of see, since he managed the 1969 Mets. Gil Hodges the baseball player....probably not good enough. Gil Hodges the baseball player plus the manager of one of the more unlikely and fabled stories in baseball...just enough to squeak in.

If the White Sox had any inkling that Rodon was worth 1/25 on the market, they would have tendered him. He would have either refused or accepted. Then they could trade him in the latter scenario because his contract has value. Either they are comically wrong or they know more than people on an opposing team's message board do. My bet is the latter. A signing of that ilk that ends up being wasted on the IL is $25 million that could have been spent elsewhere on a team where 2-3 WAR variance could be the difference between World Series appearance and just missing out on the playoffs. Like it was this year. 1/18 or less is at least the going rate for the risk involved.

Regarding the Bonds versus Clemens thing...well AT LEAST he has Bonds right. Give him credit for that.

WTF did Schilling do that's so bad? He has political opinions people don't like and sometimes acts like a troll online. He didn't go around beating or raping women.