Brownie19

I wonder if they bought the Astros something to thank them for putting Jomboy on the map. The trash can breakdown was massive for them.

I thought they were going to announce that Kenny was coming on board. New office looks good though.

Good god - I just went to look up the Rockies stats on Fangraphs and Marquez was the 8th best OFFENSIVE player last year with a 0.7 WAR. What a horrible organization. McMahon is a career 87 wRC+ hitter over 1500+ PA's. I'm not sure he's a solution at all. I'd rather keep Biggio.

Quite a set on the lady in red. Great addition.

I don't disagree. I mean by all means if their goal is to increase spending in general, then implement a salary floor. I'm just saying I'm not sure that will necessarily result in more competition across the league. It probably will to some extent, but there will still be lots of teams who aren't 'trying to win' even though they are spending more.

Brownie for Union President?

This may be hard to explain, but I think you have to implement something that will change the business models for teams. In the example you provided, I suspect the Jays looked at it and said - even though we are 'retooling' and don't expect to win, we're willing to spend more money now to stay somewhat competitive between 2017-2019 because we're riding the coat tails of the 2015-2016 teams/playoff appearances. I fully suspect their modelling indicated the projected return was worth the investment. You can't apply that model across the board and expect similar results. If Pittsburgh signs Rodon and the O's sign Suzuki - the team will still suck balls and won't be anywhere near the playoffs. Will that investment generate more revenue and profit? I suspect the answer is no - no it won't. So while that sucks for baseball, only moronic owners are going to ignore that. That's why we see teams like the Cubs (who can spend) go through a full rebuild, slash spending and save up their money and spend it when they hit the right portion of the win curve. Until you change those dynamics - I doubt much will change. Until finishing with between 70 and 80 wins consistently nets you more revenue and profit than finishing with 60-70 wins - teams will continue to manipulate their assets (ie prospects) and spending accordingly. As much as I don't like it, increasing the # of teams that make the playoffs may be part of the solution as I have to think that making the playoffs has a tangible impact on revenue and profit. Making it easier to make the playoffs will change the business models. I wonder if you could implement something where a larger portion of the profit sharing or TV deal money is given to teams with more than 70 wins (or whatever number makes sense). If we do implement a salary 'floor' - I do wonder if teams will use the money they have to spend to actually get better. I suspect some will use it to rebuild. They'll 'take' s***** contracts back in exchange for better prospects and those s***** contracts will allow them to get up to the floor without the team actually improving. I think they'll keep doing that if there's no financial benefit to being a 75 win team instead of a 65 win team....they'll manipulate the system to try and land enough good talent to finally break through the 75 win threshold and move up into the optimal location on the win curve where they'll be real contender - because that will have a tangible impact on their revenue/profit.

They do? I mean obviously there are some great organizations out there that do build consistent contenders, but most do it by either A) spending a s*** ton of money on players, which isn't something all Owners can do (NYY, BOS, LA, etc.); or they manipulate the system, trade stars before they become too expensive and draft/trade/develop great (TB, OAK). The Cardinals might be the only real example that fits your suggestion. They are often around the 10th highest payroll (although it's gone up to about 5 a few times) and often retain their good players.

Yeah - MLB Network guy was suggesting Lester is absolutely a HOF pitcher. You can't add him if you're leaving Pettitte out.

Ah - that makes more sense and I agree - it's pretty s*****. Thanks for clarifying.

I mean $700,000 from $575,000 is still a 21.7% increase. I guess you could argue it's been too low forever and a 50% increase is appropriate, but if they got to the high end of that report, it's not awful. I don't think you can expect the Owners to agree to some massive increase all in one year. I could see them setting it at $700K, with yearly escalation clauses that allow it to approach the 'right' number over the next 5-10 years. $700K with a 5% annual increase gets them to $1M in 8 years.

So Ken Griffey Jr in RF. Nice.

How much does a guy have to hit to justify this move? I mean Bryce Harper was moved from catcher to OF to fast track his development and avoid the punishment, but he's a career 142 wRC+ hitter. Are you moving Moreno off catcher if he's a 115 wRC+ hitter while playing 3rd base? How much do we think someone's offensive production decreases due to playing catcher? If Moreno's a 115 wRC+ hitter at 3rd base, would he be a 105 wRC+ hitter as a catcher? These are just theoretical numbers for an example. I'm obviously hopeful that Moreno is a 125+ wRC+ hitter.

Jesus - has the talent level dropped significantly in Cuba over the past few years?

I suspect the argument is that if you're going to cut my salary because the stadium is empty, you need to increase it when the stadium is full. The NHL started postponing games simply because of the capacity limits set by the government.

I also agree with his point that in MOST cases, a writer probably doesn't have enough information about that person's character to allow it to play significantly into his decision. I'm sure there are cases where writers leave someone off the ballot because that player was an ******* to them at one point or didn't interact with the media enough - when in reality, they had no idea what that player was going through (maybe had a family member sick or issues with a wife or kids and blowing off the media wasn't him being an *******, it was him being human).

Jomboy Media (@jomboymedia) • Instagram reel WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM 8,811 likes, 316 comments - jomboymedia on January 4, 2022: "ESPN’s Jeff Passan thinks baseball writers should be voting for the Hall of Fame based on how the players performed on the field and not factoring in how players carry themselves off the field @roserotation". I'm with Jeff on this one.

Thanks Jim. Leo above Groshans - didn't see that coming. This is probably the most positive writeup I've ever read on Leo. Limited to 54 games and five rehab appearances due to a dislocated left shoulder, Jimenez had a special statistical season, slashing .320/.523/.392 while walking nearly twice as often as he struck out. Yes, a .523 OBP in 59 games. Jimenez has a special ability to put the bat on the ball, and he’s especially adept at getting on top of high fastballs. It is freakish bat-to-ball ability with very little impact, but that may be enough to enable a viable defensive shortstop like Jimenez to play a sizable big league role. Even though he is only 20 and hasn’t played above A-ball, Toronto felt compelled to put Jimenez on their 40-man this offseason to protect him from the Rule 5 Draft ahead of previously more famous members of their farm system. We buy that Jimenez is at least going to become an important big league cog, but his hit tool might be so special that he sneaks up on everyone and seizes hold of an everyday job, à la Nicky Lopez and David Fletcher.

He's referring to the Browns, who PFF had ranked 3rd going into the season - and they suck. I've always wondered if the PFF rankings were accurate at all. I see they rank Daniel Jones (78.3) and Justin Herbert (79.9) almost the same while they give out really stupid rookie rankings for T.Lawrence (91) and Zack Wilson (95). They also ranked L.Murray over J.Taylor at RB, which is f***ing insane. I know there will always be odd outliers, but do we think in general, their ranking system does a decent job of evaluating talent?

Well I guess that's good if true.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PA doesn't give a f*** about that. They're primary focus is to ensure the older players get paid and their general mindset is that young player should go through the same hardships that they did, so f***'em. Of course this mindset is ridiculous and shortsighted.

For sure - based on this ranking, it looks like he might jump up into the top 10 rounds, which is pretty awesome.

My boy Adam Tulloch is ranked 292 in that link. First time I've seen him ranked anywhere. Family friend.

Dude - they spent $26 BILLION to buy Shaw.

My youngest (soon to be 6) received a baby blue Vlad Jr jersey from Santa. He hasn't taken it off yet (including last night while sleeping). Pretty special stuff.