KingKat

No I don't either but a few games in the DH spot might be a good way to make extra sure of that.

Well I agree with the calling up Gose part but not to play LF for Melky. It should be to play CF for Rasmus if the later needs more time for his hamstring.

No of course not. If you have a deep rotation you probably never give a guy like Chavez a shot and you just move on. s*** like that happens and I'm fine with it but no matter how much you pretend it did that's clearly not what's happened here. When you're struggling to find innings and you finally give the guy an opportunity becasuse A. You're desperate and B. He's performed well, you don't give up on him after 21 innings just because of something as meaningless as a high homerun rate over a small sample. That's borderlinge schyzophrenic. You don't seem to comprehend why that s*** still sticks in my craw two years later. It was poor roster management something this team excels in. The fact that the team was willing to give up two potentially useful role players for Rogers but wasn't willing to merely give a little playing time to Chavez when the team didn't have any pitching doesn't really help your point. You're absolutely right but what does that change about the circumstances of 2012? Oh right, it doesn't change anything. All Chavez is doing is bringing back the painful memory. It was a derpy move. Was there a chance it never came back to haunt the Jays? Absolutely but it was a still a mistake and like I said before there is some poetic justice to seeing Chavez do well in these 3 starts. I haven't said any of those things. You're just making broad extrapolations rather than addressing the specific circumstances around Chavez. As I've already stated, I'm not saying anything should have been guaranteed. What happened is that an opportunity did arise for Chavez and it was bungled by the organization. For the life of me, I can't see why you can't wrap your head around that.

...or Rasmus depending on how his hamstring feels.

Nothing except his performance as a Jay in 2012. Why you continue to ignore this is beyond me. That much is true. No one is saying Chavez should have been a lock for anyone's rotation but not giving him a longer look in 2012 was just plain stupid. I really don't see how you could argue otherwise. Even if he sucked now, that wouldn't change the facts of 2012. I never said that. I haven't made a single prediction about Chavez then or now. Geez, you really like to miss the point. No one can predict breakouts. This has nothing to do with what Chavez is doing now other than it's a bit of poetic justice (which may or may not continue thoughout the season). This has everything to do with Chavez's current success reminding us of how dumb it was to cut his audition so short when all he had going against him is a high homerun rate. You're the one who keep trying to re-write history and pretend like 2012 never happened. Just because most of the posters on the board didn't bother to look up his rate stats before deciding he wasn't any good back in 2012 doesn't mean the evidence to the contrary wasn't plainly there. Apparently, the Jays chose to ignore that and we're supposed to just be fine with it and say easy come, easy go.

In 2012 in Vegas, he put up ratios of 1.9 BB/9 and 8.1 K/9 for a ratio of 4.30 K/BB. That is an excellent minor league season but after a measly 21 innings in the Show, they decided he wasn't good enough even though his ratios were still solid other than his homerun rate. You can try to shrug it off all you want but that was just plain dumb.

Most of the old board was happy when he lost his rotation spot and I still maintain to this day that most of the board was wrong. Litterally all he did wrong was give up too many homeruns in a small sample size well below what was needed to consider it stabilized while the few stats that were significant at that point were all positive. It was by any objective measure a mistake regardless of majority opininion on the board. In fact I think part of the reason people were so harsh on Chavez is because Greenwood was defending him. No one took his opinion serioulsy even after Nox make the statistical argument that clearly supported his position.

Nope. The shame was it not giving him a proper audition when there was a chance. Some extreme bad luck with flyballs in the majors and a great AAA season gets dismissed as if it's nothing.

Because the pitchers that were already on the 40 man hadn't been optioned to the minors long enough. You would think teams would take this into consideration when they make their minor league assignments in the first place but apparently not.

http://whyiwonttalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/dunce-cap.gif

Yes it's because they weren't allowed to call up Jenkins. It hadn't been long enough since he and the other likely candidates had been demoted to the minors so they had to reach a bit and add Walden to the roster.

Has anyone ever head of a MLB team employing a full time catching coach? It's always done by a member of the staff. I really don't understand Juiced's preocupation with this.

Pretty derpy that Walden should get DFA'd because of a misinterpretaion of the rule by the Front Office. Inconsenquential surely but it looks pretty bush league to not know the rules better. It's not like AA is a rookie GM and he was an AGM before that.

I wasn't concerned about the weather specifically. I was just thinking someone who hasn't played a lot of CF would be more likely to be involved in a collision or something like that, doubly so with Sierra in RF.

Both are a joke but Mekly has played there much more throughout his career. He should at least have the instincts for the position. There's arguably more injury risk for Bautista not to mention you're rising a more valuable player with Bautista. Melky in cf is the lesser evil.

Teams usually make sure to always have an ex-catcher on the coaching staff just for this purpose. Under Farrell, it was Wakamatsu. Under Gibbons, it's Gibby himself. Under Cito, it was Tenace.

For the record I'm not running a Windows 8 version of the browser because those are annoying. I'm just running regular Chrome on the desktop. I can't be bothered with all that Alpha ********.

Boy who cried like a contrarian syndrome.

I can't find it anymore but there was a much interesting thread about Chavez on the old board. It was either immediately in the wake of his first start or after he got demoted. In it, a lot of people were ranting against him but all this was based on the fact that he gave up a lot of homeruns. I believe I asked if it was premature to judge him on his homerun rate so soon. Nox answered that it was beyond absurd to be counting homerun rate that soon at a time where it wasn't close to stabilizing. He was having a really great minor league season that year. It was derpy as hell not to give him a longuer leash. It's the kind of thing that a team really deserves to have them bite them in the ass.

Not exactly. It loads fine in Chrome but it doesn't keep track of read threads very well on my Windows 8 computer. Everything is fine and dandy with Chrome on my Windows 7 computer.

It would help if Machado moved back to SS. The AL is so stacked with killer 3B right now with Beltre and Zimmerman in the mix.

Why should his leash be extended? When Reyes comes back, Kawasaki should stick and Goins should be demoted.

Yeah but football is a timed sport, baseball isn't. There aren't set windows of time between plays in baseball like their is in baseball.

But how did this job of looking at the video for internal review start? Is this a role that has been created as part of the rule or is it just something teams do because it's not explicitely forbidden? If it's the former than just get rid of it. If it's the latter than yeah it might be a lot harder to take out and may lead to other abuses. I guess another approach would be to find a way take the manager's right out of the process. The manager's themselves have been quoted numerous times saying they would prefer not to be burdened with this responsibility. I think they prefered to just be completely biased and always argue for their side. That's been the culture of the game for years. It's what feels natural to them.

Agree with this. Make the manager go with his gut. Even when they wait around for the internal review, managers get a lot of challenges wrong. That time would be better spent going directly to the official review. It would pretty much eliminate all reviews on low leverage plays which I think is a fair sacrifice for a well paced game (I haven't sen any evidence that game times are actually longer on average this year and I would suspect the difference is negligable, it's more about how it makes the game feel slower regardless of whether or not it's actually longer).