Thomas Malthus
-
Posts
104 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Toronto Blue Jays Videos
2025 Toronto Blue Jays Top Prospects Ranking
Toronto Blue Jays Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Toronto Blue Jays Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Thomas Malthus
-
I think I'd rank Cecil's dog higher than Sanchez.
-
Everyone submits a list to Grant that will be published next Monday starting with players 25-20, followed by 19-10 on Tuesday and 10-1 on Monday. Let's do this right.
-
The moves that Shanahan made were months or at least a year after being hired. You're making these assessments of Shanahan with the benefit of hindsight, let's wait a year or at least an offseason and see what Shapiro does, yeah? Let's not forget that Shanahan first kept Nonis and Carlyle on for one more season before turfing them and allowed Nonis to make moves like signing Robidas. Nonis was not a good GM and yet he still made a good trade in Clarkson for Horton (cleaning up after himself as it were) and that's sort of how I think many people here see AA (not AS bad as Nonis but thematically the same and underutilizing analytics).
-
Couldn't this also be said of Shapiro and Atkins? They have a long term plan to build an continuously competitive team and that plan will be tested if/when this team wins - they should avoid going full Alex and stick to the plan. "I don't think Shanahan will be bad; I imagine he'll be pretty good but he's done nothing to make me believe he is on the level of someone like Stan Bowman or Ken Holland." I'm a Leafs fan and I'm optimistic about the future of the team because of the Shanaplan based around Nylander, Marner and Rielly alongside Babcock but Shanahan was no Shapiro coming in.
-
What else is there to do in the offseason? It sure seems like there's more reason to be passionate in the ranking of the players' looks than the 18-26 slots on the farm.
-
By the sounds of it Goose, you should be pleading the case for Rogers spending the $15M-20M a season on better management rather than on Maeda.
-
So whose house do we get to meet him at?
-
Fister and Latos seem like guys Shapiro and Atkins would like.
-
Thanks to everyone who put the time into making a list so that I can free-ride and educate myself.
-
So Dinger is a loser but just not a big enough one to vote on forum awards?
-
Yeah, definitely. Could do 1 through 10 tonight, 11 through 20 tomorrow and 21 through 27 on Wednesday. That leaves two days of discussion for the big picture list (including Friday) and a day of more focused discussion on each block. I don't really have a preference either way, I'm new here and just along for the ride My bad, I didn't interpret his post as saying one prospect a day. Just one every couple hours or something. Regardless, above I posted something similar to you.
-
Is that incompatible with posting the players one at a time or even in smaller batches?
-
So are the Giants out of the running on Maeda then?
-
I concur.
-
D) The mechanic you use when your car breaks down in Georgia.
-
Nice profile of Maeda: http://www.amazinavenue.com/2015/12/13/9882352/international-free-agent-profile-kenta-maeda Does he though? That's the big question.
-
In the words of a presumably legendary poster here: "It never hurts to ask"
-
I read the first half or three quarters of the page and then nope'd right out of there.
-
Or just not have a bigger neck than Zangief.
-
I just stumbled upon the climate change thread from last year started by Anemic0ffense. http://i.imgur.com/kRrkfUU.gif
-
Donaldson gives me Hugh Jackman vibes for some reason. I dunno why.
-
It seems sort of strange - I mean if the argument for it is that pitchers will perform better and be injured less frequently then the pitchers will probably come to appreciate that. And if the roster size per team isn't' changing there's no loss of employment, right? However, I suppose it's players in an "iconic" (or something) position that are being replaced? I dunno. Got any links to this grievance stuff? (I'll look backwards in the thread to see what's been linked, just heading to bed now though).
-
My concern was raised by somebody in the comments section - sure you're reducing the intensity of each start but you're dramatically reducing the time between games. But such a hard limit on starters doesn't necessarily need to result in dropping two starters, right? And that's where the increased pitch counts for relievers comes in I suppose.
-
Since we're talking about this kind of thing right now, has this been linked recently? http://www.billjamesonline.com/the_three_man_starting_rotation/ Edit: Article is by Bill James outlining how a 3 man rotation would work - with a 5 inning or 80 pitch limit.
-
Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at at the end to my earlier post. These guys could go from topping out at ~2 WAR to being worth potentially double since once through the order is like 2 innings (34 pitches) on average and they're throwing about 1 inning a game. Or at least that's what it appears with some quick napkin maths. There's probably general equilibrium effects, there always are.
