mlb 2020

This forum is for talking about non-music-related stuff that the DBT fanbase might be interested in. This is not the place for inside jokes and BS. Take that crap to some other board.

Moderators: Jonicont, mark lynn, Maluca3, Tequila Cowboy, BigTom, CooleyGirl, olwiggum

Zip City
Posts: 16751
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Zip City »

Bill in CT wrote:I think it's highly unlikely that the Astros were cheating in the 2019 postseason. They lost all 4 home games in the WS and won all 3 road games.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb- ... vfNDIxJSDU
Cheating doesn't mean automatically winning. They may have been trying
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever

Bill in CT
Posts: 3365
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:37 pm

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Bill in CT »

Zip City wrote:
Bill in CT wrote:I think it's highly unlikely that the Astros were cheating in the 2019 postseason. They lost all 4 home games in the WS and won all 3 road games.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb- ... vfNDIxJSDU
Cheating doesn't mean automatically winning. They may have been trying
Of course both teams were trying to win. But if an elaborate sign-stealing plan was in place for their home games and such a plan helped them as much in 2019 as some people claim it did in 2017, then it is highly unlikely they would have lost all 4 home games in the 2019 WS.
The closer you get to the meaning
The sooner you'll know that you're dreaming

jr29
Posts: 1961
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:28 pm
Location: Memphis, Tn

Re: mlb 2020

Post by jr29 »

Bill in CT wrote:
Zip City wrote:
Bill in CT wrote:I think it's highly unlikely that the Astros were cheating in the 2019 postseason. They lost all 4 home games in the WS and won all 3 road games.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb- ... vfNDIxJSDU
Cheating doesn't mean automatically winning. They may have been trying
Of course both teams were trying to win. But if an elaborate sign-stealing plan was in place for their home games and such a plan helped them as much in 2019 as some people claim it did in 2017, then it is highly unlikely they would have lost all 4 home games in the 2019 WS.
Then I'd love a legitimate reason for why Jose Altuve acted like his contract would be nullified if his jersey was ripped off in the ALCS.
The reasons he gave were........
1. I don't know.
2. I'm shy.
3. My wife gets mad when my jersey is ripped off.
I ain't buying any of those.

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20116
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

I think Dusty Baker is one of the most overrated managers ever. Everyone in the game loves him and yet he's never won a World Series or even really come close. Personally I despise the guy and blame him for almost making me give up on the Cubs entirely for making that 2004 squad the most unlikable Cubs team ever. That all said, I think this was the hire that the Astros had to make. He's a straight arrow, players like him and he's one of the least likely guys to try to find end arounds in order to use data more effectively. He doesn't really use data at all. Also they were smart by giving him a two year deal but with a buyout option after year one. It galls me but he's the right face for that organization right now.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

Zip City
Posts: 16751
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Zip City »

Dusty should be put to pasture. The game has passed him by
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever

User avatar
oilpiers
Posts: 1456
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 10:46 am
Location: Louisville Ky

Re: mlb 2020

Post by oilpiers »

I saw a Grandson interview by Harold Reynolds yesterday. Grandy was asked what he may do. I have an idea. Take Reynolds job! Grandson is the most articulate and charismatic athlete I have ever seen. He should be the new face of MLB Network.

beantownbubba
Posts: 19747
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: mlb 2020

Post by beantownbubba »

oilpiers wrote:I saw a Grandson interview by Harold Reynolds yesterday. Grandy was asked what he may do. I have an idea. Take Reynolds job! Grandson is the most articulate and charismatic athlete I have ever seen. He should be the new face of MLB Network.
I actually thought for a minute you were talking about some new feature in which former athletes interview their grandchildren. That's obviously not it, so who's Grandson?
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
oilpiers
Posts: 1456
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 10:46 am
Location: Louisville Ky

Re: mlb 2020

Post by oilpiers »

beantownbubba wrote:
oilpiers wrote:I saw a Grandson interview by Harold Reynolds yesterday. Grandy was asked what he may do. I have an idea. Take Reynolds job! Grandson is the most articulate and charismatic athlete I have ever seen. He should be the new face of MLB Network.
I actually thought for a minute you were talking about some new feature in which former athletes interview their grandchildren. That's obviously not it, so who's Grandson?
Autocorrect doesn't like Curtis Granderson. (I'm pretty sure the context filled you in on to whom I was referring to)

beantownbubba
Posts: 19747
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: mlb 2020

Post by beantownbubba »

oilpiers wrote:
beantownbubba wrote:
oilpiers wrote:I saw a Grandson interview by Harold Reynolds yesterday. Grandy was asked what he may do. I have an idea. Take Reynolds job! Grandson is the most articulate and charismatic athlete I have ever seen. He should be the new face of MLB Network.
I actually thought for a minute you were talking about some new feature in which former athletes interview their grandchildren. That's obviously not it, so who's Grandson?
Autocorrect doesn't like Curtis Granderson. (I'm pretty sure the context filled you in on to whom I was referring to)
Sigh. I probably should have known, but I actually didn't. I was not pulling your chain/having a joke at your expense. Can't say I've never done that kind of thing but I try really hard not to do it any more.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
oilpiers
Posts: 1456
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 10:46 am
Location: Louisville Ky

Re: mlb 2020

Post by oilpiers »

Thats fine. I know you are at least as knowledgable about baseball as me. Probably more. My mother is from Boston, and my first 3 years were there. I knew Yaz before I even knew what baseball was!

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20116
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

Mookie Betts and David Price to the Dodgers
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

beantownbubba
Posts: 19747
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: mlb 2020

Post by beantownbubba »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:Mookie Betts and David Price to the Dodgers

Baseball is dead to me. I am officially in mourning.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

Zip City
Posts: 16751
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Zip City »

The Betts trade looks worse and worse the longer you stare at it. It's complete insanity, and it proves that the owners have coalesced around the luxury tax as a de facto salary cap
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever

beantownbubba
Posts: 19747
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: mlb 2020

Post by beantownbubba »

Zip City wrote:The Betts trade looks worse and worse the longer you stare at it. It's complete insanity, and it proves that the owners have coalesced around the luxury tax as a de facto salary cap
Agreed. They have also calculated that the fans are a captive audience w/ inexhaustibly deep pockets. Let's find out if they're right. They're not getting my money, my tv viewing or my mindshare this year; we'll see if others are similarly disposed. The Sox are raising ticket prices this year. Of course they somehow managed to sell some large number of tickets (my guess is close to 2 million) without mentioning that mookie wasn't going to be on the team and in fact announcing w/ great fanfare that the team had signed him for at least this year. Complete insanity doesn't quite cover it, but it will do.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

chuckrh
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: mlb 2020

Post by chuckrh »

beantownbubba wrote:
Zip City wrote:The Betts trade looks worse and worse the longer you stare at it. It's complete insanity, and it proves that the owners have coalesced around the luxury tax as a de facto salary cap
Agreed. They have also calculated that the fans are a captive audience w/ inexhaustibly deep pockets. Let's find out if they're right. They're not getting my money, my tv viewing or my mindshare this year; we'll see if others are similarly disposed. The Sox are raising ticket prices this year. Of course they somehow managed to sell some large number of tickets (my guess is close to 2 million) without mentioning that mookie wasn't going to be on the team and in fact announcing w/ great fanfare that the team had signed him for at least this year. Complete insanity doesn't quite cover it, but it will do.

Mariners pulled a similar move last year. I've given up. Sorry you have to go through that, bubba.

User avatar
Shakespeare
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Shakespeare »

i have no take on the baseball merits of the betts trade but a marquee franchise trading one of the two or three best players in the game, playing on a no-risk contract, as a salary dump is bad news for the entire sport

its not a perfect analogy but the nats were in roughly the same situation last offseason with rendon (and to a lesser extent, strasburg, but his opt out was a longshot at the time) and instead of unloading him for guaranteed prospects they kept him and won the world series

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20116
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

Shakespeare wrote:i have no take on the baseball merits of the betts trade but a marquee franchise trading one of the two or three best players in the game, playing on a no-risk contract, as a salary dump is bad news for the entire sport

its not a perfect analogy but the nats were in roughly the same situation last offseason with rendon (and to a lesser extent, strasburg, but his opt out was a longshot at the time) and instead of unloading him for guaranteed prospects they kept him and won the world series
Sure Washington did that and it paid off, the year before though they kept Harper and were crucified for the decision. The bottom line is that Boston was not going to win the World Series this year no matter what so trading Betts, knowing they couldn't sign him within budget parameters, was absolutely the right thing to do. Painful, but the correct move. They offered him a deal worth somewhere between $320-$330 million and he countered with $420 mil. Realistically he's going to get about $380 mil. It's in his best interests to test his market and to the Sox best interest to move him.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

Zip City
Posts: 16751
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Zip City »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:
Shakespeare wrote:i have no take on the baseball merits of the betts trade but a marquee franchise trading one of the two or three best players in the game, playing on a no-risk contract, as a salary dump is bad news for the entire sport

its not a perfect analogy but the nats were in roughly the same situation last offseason with rendon (and to a lesser extent, strasburg, but his opt out was a longshot at the time) and instead of unloading him for guaranteed prospects they kept him and won the world series
Sure Washington did that and it paid off, the year before though they kept Harper and were crucified for the decision. The bottom line is that Boston was not going to win the World Series this year no matter what so trading Betts, knowing they couldn't sign him within budget parameters, was absolutely the right thing to do. Painful, but the correct move. They offered him a deal worth somewhere between $320-$330 million and he countered with $420 mil. Realistically he's going to get about $380 mil. It's in his best interests to test his market and to the Sox best interest to move him.
"Not going to win the WS no matter what"....you've been a baseball fan long enough to know that the baseball playoffs are a total crapshoot, and anyone can win
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever

User avatar
Shakespeare
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Shakespeare »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:
Shakespeare wrote:i have no take on the baseball merits of the betts trade but a marquee franchise trading one of the two or three best players in the game, playing on a no-risk contract, as a salary dump is bad news for the entire sport

its not a perfect analogy but the nats were in roughly the same situation last offseason with rendon (and to a lesser extent, strasburg, but his opt out was a longshot at the time) and instead of unloading him for guaranteed prospects they kept him and won the world series
Sure Washington did that and it paid off, the year before though they kept Harper and were crucified for the decision. The bottom line is that Boston was not going to win the World Series this year no matter what so trading Betts, knowing they couldn't sign him within budget parameters, was absolutely the right thing to do. Painful, but the correct move. They offered him a deal worth somewhere between $320-$330 million and he countered with $420 mil. Realistically he's going to get about $380 mil. It's in his best interests to test his market and to the Sox best interest to move him.
see i dont necessarily disagree with any of this (except the world series line. most any team is a few breaks away from a legitimate shot with the current setup, and having mookie betts counts for several breaks. also i find a team like the boston red sox claiming budget parameters a bit of a stretch), i just dont think its good for the game

at the same time im a thousand percent behind players getting every single penny they can so how to fix it is beyond me

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20116
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

Zip City wrote:"Not going to win the WS no matter what"....you've been a baseball fan long enough to know that the baseball playoffs are a total crapshoot, and anyone can win
That's not as true as it used to be. The Red Sox even with Betts were the third best team in their division and at best a long shot for the Wild Card. They're better served moving on now.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

User avatar
Shakespeare
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Shakespeare »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:
Zip City wrote:"Not going to win the WS no matter what"....you've been a baseball fan long enough to know that the baseball playoffs are a total crapshoot, and anyone can win
That's not as true as it used to be. The Red Sox even with Betts were the third best team in their division and at best a long shot for the Wild Card. They're better served moving on now.
need i remind you what a team with about 5 reliable pitchers on its entire roster did last october

if you have a superstar and a few above average complementary pieces already its ridiculous to throw in the towel this early

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20116
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

Shakespeare wrote:see i dont necessarily disagree with any of this (except the world series line. most any team is a few breaks away from a legitimate shot with the current setup, and having mookie betts counts for several breaks. also i find a team like the boston red sox claiming budget parameters a bit of a stretch), i just dont think its good for the game

at the same time im a thousand percent behind players getting every single penny they can so how to fix it is beyond me
The last CBA effectively made the CBT a cap with the draft and IFA implications. Large market teams will exceed the CBT for no more that three years, reset and spend again. It's the new economics of the game.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

beantownbubba
Posts: 19747
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: mlb 2020

Post by beantownbubba »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:
Shakespeare wrote:i have no take on the baseball merits of the betts trade but a marquee franchise trading one of the two or three best players in the game, playing on a no-risk contract, as a salary dump is bad news for the entire sport

its not a perfect analogy but the nats were in roughly the same situation last offseason with rendon (and to a lesser extent, strasburg, but his opt out was a longshot at the time) and instead of unloading him for guaranteed prospects they kept him and won the world series
Sure Washington did that and it paid off, the year before though they kept Harper and were crucified for the decision. The bottom line is that Boston was not going to win the World Series this year no matter what so trading Betts, knowing they couldn't sign him within budget parameters, was absolutely the right thing to do. Painful, but the correct move. They offered him a deal worth somewhere between $320-$330 million and he countered with $420 mil. Realistically he's going to get about $380 mil. It's in his best interests to test his market and to the Sox best interest to move him.
I couldn't disagree w/ you more, TC. As has been pointed out, your assumption about the WS is unjustified and pretty much unsupportable, but that's not even the point. You say it was the right thing to do but your reasons seem to be that Betts turned down the Sox' offer and that the Sox had budget constraints. I don't really get the logic in that. This was a salary dump, not a "baseball decision." The Sox are a goldmine. For them to impose "budget constraints" is totally arbitrary and inconsistent with their ticket (and hot dog and parking) prices. For the Boston Red Sox of all teams to make decisions based on the salary cap says two things: The salary cap/luxury tax system is not good for the game and should be replaced and rooting for a team is a sucker's game. To paraphrase Mr. Seinfeld, I'm done rooting for rich men's laundry. There's nothing new about any of this but when you're talking about a home grown franchise player who is one of the very best in the game with a chance to be historically great, the face of the franchise and in his prime besides simply being a pleasure to watch and it's your (i.e. mine) home grown home team player it hits particularly hard.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

Bill in CT
Posts: 3365
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:37 pm

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Bill in CT »

This article about the Betts trade is a good read.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/286 ... ade-why-be
The closer you get to the meaning
The sooner you'll know that you're dreaming

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20116
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

beantownbubba wrote:
Tequila Cowboy wrote:
Shakespeare wrote:i have no take on the baseball merits of the betts trade but a marquee franchise trading one of the two or three best players in the game, playing on a no-risk contract, as a salary dump is bad news for the entire sport

its not a perfect analogy but the nats were in roughly the same situation last offseason with rendon (and to a lesser extent, strasburg, but his opt out was a longshot at the time) and instead of unloading him for guaranteed prospects they kept him and won the world series
Sure Washington did that and it paid off, the year before though they kept Harper and were crucified for the decision. The bottom line is that Boston was not going to win the World Series this year no matter what so trading Betts, knowing they couldn't sign him within budget parameters, was absolutely the right thing to do. Painful, but the correct move. They offered him a deal worth somewhere between $320-$330 million and he countered with $420 mil. Realistically he's going to get about $380 mil. It's in his best interests to test his market and to the Sox best interest to move him.
I couldn't disagree w/ you more, TC. As has been pointed out, your assumption about the WS is unjustified and pretty much unsupportable, but that's not even the point. You say it was the right thing to do but your reasons seem to be that Betts turned down the Sox' offer and that the Sox had budget constraints. I don't really get the logic in that. This was a salary dump, not a "baseball decision." The Sox are a goldmine. For them to impose "budget constraints" is totally arbitrary and inconsistent with their ticket (and hot dog and parking) prices. For the Boston Red Sox of all teams to make decisions based on the salary cap says two things: The salary cap/luxury tax system is not good for the game and should be replaced and rooting for a team is a sucker's game. To paraphrase Mr. Seinfeld, I'm done rooting for rich men's laundry. There's nothing new about any of this but when you're talking about a home grown franchise player who is one of the very best in the game with a chance to be historically great, the face of the franchise and in his prime besides simply being a pleasure to watch and it's your (i.e. mine) home grown home team player it hits particularly hard.
I think the draft and IFA pool implications for exceeding the CBT more than three years in a row are the key here, not the monetary savings.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

beantownbubba
Posts: 19747
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: mlb 2020

Post by beantownbubba »

Bill in CT wrote:This article about the Betts trade is a good read.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/286 ... ade-why-be
Fair, balanced, well informed and completely unconvincing.

I have no patience for anyone who blames the player in these situations so let's dismiss that one right away.

The bottom line is the bottom line: "Boston traded Mookie Betts because it believes its best long-term interests included dealing one of the greatest players in franchise history, and that the team can weather the PR storm the deal has created." Remind me when the Boston Red Sox previously traded one of the greatest players in the franchise's history? How many team owners from the 1920's can you name? Connie Mack, probably. Charlie Comiskey maybe, especially if you've read the book or seen the movie. But what's the one name everyone knows? Harry Frazee.

But again I'll say baseball's financial structure is fucked up. 10 and 12 year contracts? Long term contracts for pitchers? Long term back end loaded contracts that pay players in their declining years to the point where they make millions when they can't make the starting team and in some cases don't even belong on the major league roster? None of that makes any sense but you know, management agreed to the structure and agrees to the deals it signs players to so they have nobody to blame but themselves. As it's the flip side of the owners paying minor leaguers a pittance and young players far less than their value, they seem to think this trade-off makes sense. The fact that I don't think it does is not exactly relevant except to the extent that it creates "PR storms" like this one. I predict many empty seats at Fenway this year and perhaps more importantly, declining tv ratings. I also feel sorry for what's his name, the new GM: He's the designated hatchet man and "small market development" man so he'll stick around for 2 or 3 awful (for him, merely not good for the team) years where he gets blamed for everything and then will be fired just in time for the team to re-emerge as a contender. But he, too, knew what he was getting into.

Oh, just as a btw, John Henry also own Liverpool in the English Premier League which is having an historic season and is worth about a zillion dollars itself, so any sympathy for Henry is extremely misplaced and that's before you get to his day job.
Last edited by beantownbubba on Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

beantownbubba
Posts: 19747
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: mlb 2020

Post by beantownbubba »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:I think the draft and IFA pool implications for exceeding the CBT more than three years in a row are the key here, not the monetary savings.
1. Even if you're right that's a formula for PR disaster, which is what it has wrought.
2. It is at best an extremely risky strategy with which to replace a once in a franchise history type player.
3. If that's going to be your strategy shouldn't you go all in and get high draft choices and still developing minor leaguers w/ high ceilings rather than 2 young pros who may or may not succeed but will never be a mookie betts and even if they do succeed (however defined), are unlikely to do so in Boston, which is perhaps only behind NY and Philly in uglness if the fans don't like you?
4. In evaluating Boston's motives, this might be a good time to remember Bill James' infamous comment that we can always get other players.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
Shakespeare
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Shakespeare »

see i do get all the money reasons why they did it. going by the system its hard to say its completely unjustified. whos more to blame for that, i dont know or particularly care.

i just think giving teams incentives to unload top shelf talent is bad for the sport

beantownbubba
Posts: 19747
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: mlb 2020

Post by beantownbubba »

Shakespeare wrote:i just think giving teams incentives to unload top shelf talent is bad for the sport
Yep.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20116
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: mlb 2020

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

So this new information about Houston and how deep the conspiracy about the "dark arts" went is disturbing and makes you wonder why the punishment wasn't stronger right? I heard a legal expert explain why he though that was. Apparently the individual teams of MLB are individual franchises operating under the auspices of MLB and as such the governing constitution doesn't permit unilateral action that would adversely affect the income of the teams beyond the $5 mil maximum fine. If they were to change that by stripping a title or even banning a team from the post season where they could earn additional revenue it would leave MLB susceptible to lawsuits questioning its anti-trust status.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

Post Reply