Terminator

Yep. Before the season he could have gotten 3 for 30 or something stupid I bet.

I think Hendricks is getting boned. 19ks and 1 BB in 16 IP. He's getting BABIP'd at a .491 clip.

Could be losing as much as 30 million if he doesn't get it turned around in a hurry.

That's pretty much what he does. His FIP and xFIP are s*** but in the end the ERA is there and he's thrown 215 innings. He's seemingly turned the corner earlier this year than in year's past. ERA is below 3 since the beginning of May.

He's been good only twice in his career: once in '09 and once last year. He picked a hell of a time to be good though as he netted himself 13 mil.

Man just checked Dickey's numbers and since his first start in May he has a sub 3 ERA. It isn't always pretty but he's turned a corner for sure.

Lol I forgot about the DH moving to the bench. Will likely be Smoak but good point. But yeah they could run with a 3 man bench and an 8 man bullpen I suppose. I hate that idea though.

3 man bench doesn't work in interleague.

He's redundant with the emergence of Barney. When Tulo is back they can send him down but for who? Burns or Montero probably. I would have preferred they just kept Paredes and optioned Goins from the get go though. Burns might be useful as a UT player with interleague games coming up and Montero could be useful as a pinch hitter but outside of interleague I don't see either being able contribute much.

I'd take that contract on (even with his attitude) and I assume he'd come at a discounted price in a trade. Hell I'd even encourage Shatkins to look in to it right now but they won't.

Wow that 5-9 is UGLY

The carousel continues.

You can't just all of the sudden become a master of the strike zone as a hitter. It's a skill. Mark Trumbo has talked about this before. He knows he doesn't walk and he wishes that he would and he does try to. He's just not talented in that aspect of the game so he can't.

Had the previous two batters he had faced convinced you otherwise?

Lol @ big boned.

He's the opposite of Bartman for the Royals.

That's the problem. If I pay him to change it it sets the precedent that I'll pay if people have the Amish Royals fan. It will probably just create copy cats.

Did Kinsler just score on a 2 out single, then a balk, then a passed ball and then a wild pitch? lol

I will pay him to change it.

Why is everyone here on Fulmer's nuts? The projections aren't that good for him.

Already in mid-game form I see.

Yikes what is wrong with Anthony Alford?

Yeah starting the inning off with Estrada was dumb. Gibby always lets his starters pitch until the fail, then the bullpen comes in with runners on instead of starting off with a clean inning.

Yes, easily. They'll be able to outbid everyone else and the club is still a draw for most (not all) players.

Well I just don't agree with that nor do I think it's common sense. It's standard thinking which is warped by the save stat but it's not common sense. First I don't think he should come in every time we have a 4 run lead. In special circumstances it makes sense though. A 4 run lead vs the most potent offense in baseball's middle of the order is not your typical 4 run lead. Getting the final 3 outs in that situation would be harder than getting 3 outs against the bottom of the Twins lineup with a 3 run lead yet Osuna would be expected to get the ball in the latter situation because of a ******** stat called the save. On top of it these games against the Red Sox are extra important seeing as it likely comes down to us and them for who wins the division. The Save is pretty much a ******** stat that somehow has completely hijacked the way managers and fans think the 9th inning should be managed. I think it should be ignored when making bullpen decisions. EDIT: That said I do think that what you said makes sense. Grilli kind of scares me in a situation like that right now but putting in a Chavez or Floyd with a 4 run lead then going to Osuna if necessary and it's not like I would be blasting Gibbons for doing it. I'm just defending a bullpen move by Gibbons that isn't by the book but isn't necessarily wrong either.