Page 193 of 792

Re: MLB

Posted: Sat October 11, 2014 9:47 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
Moustakis

Re: MLB

Posted: Sat October 11, 2014 9:48 pm
by @SkitchP
E.H. Ruddock wrote:Moustakis

Are you keeping your O's stats up to date?

Re: MLB

Posted: Sun October 12, 2014 10:11 pm
by BigRedLedbetter
Bumgarner just devoured the Cards. No?

Image

Re: MLB

Posted: Tue October 14, 2014 6:58 pm
by philpritchard
So... the best GM in the game, who put together a consistent, sustainable, winning product on a shoestring budget, is now going to take over the role for a team with a seemingly limitless payroll.

The idea of competing in the AL East just got a little less daunting.

Re: MLB

Posted: Tue October 14, 2014 7:02 pm
by doug rr
you scared me, I thought Dayton Moore was leaving

Re: MLB

Posted: Tue October 14, 2014 7:03 pm
by BigRedLedbetter
philpritchard wrote:So... the best GM in the game, who put together a consistent, sustainable, winning product on a shoestring budget, is now going to take over the role for a team with a seemingly limitless payroll.

The idea of competing in the AL East just got a little less daunting.

Truth. On paper a huge get for the Dodgers.

Re: MLB

Posted: Tue October 14, 2014 8:37 pm
by numbers
I'm not saying Friedman won't be successful with LA, but running a team with a huge payroll that is expected to win the World Series is an entirely different animal than running a team that doesn't spend money and has no expectations.

Re: MLB

Posted: Tue October 14, 2014 8:41 pm
by philpritchard
numbers wrote:I'm not saying Friedman won't be successful with LA, but running a team with a huge payroll that is expected to win the World Series is an entirely different animal than running a team that doesn't spend money and has no expectations.
I think it depends how you decide to run it. If Friedman changes his philosophy and suddenly starts thinking "Well, I don't think this player is all that good, but we have tons of money, so why not?" then things probably won't go well. If he continues to evaluate players the same way he always has and just increases his valuations appropriately, then I think he'll do extremely well.

Re: MLB

Posted: Tue October 14, 2014 9:49 pm
by numbers
I just read that Friedman was working for TB without a contract. How could that be? This orginization continues to be an absolute disgrace and embrassment to the league.

Re: MLB

Posted: Tue October 14, 2014 10:07 pm
by BigRedLedbetter
numbers wrote:I just read that Friedman was working for TB without a contract. How could that be? This orginization continues to be an absolute disgrace and embrassment to the league.

Agreed and this is a big loss for them.

Re: MLB

Posted: Tue October 14, 2014 10:10 pm
by numbers
I'm radically anti Rays. I don't think moving the team is enough. They should be contracted and a new expansion team with new ownership should be created.

Re: MLB

Posted: Tue October 14, 2014 11:36 pm
by philpritchard
numbers wrote:I'm radically anti Rays. I don't think moving the team is enough. They should be contracted and a new expansion team with new ownership should be created.
This is meant to be a joke, right?

Re: MLB

Posted: Tue October 14, 2014 11:38 pm
by numbers
philpritchard wrote:
numbers wrote:I'm radically anti Rays. I don't think moving the team is enough. They should be contracted and a new expansion team with new ownership should be created.
This is meant to be a joke, right?
Obviously it's an exaggeration, but it pretty much sums up how I feel about that franchise.

Re: MLB

Posted: Wed October 15, 2014 12:05 am
by numbers
I gotta say, I like Ripken as a color man. I'm surprised by this because usually I think he's a colossal dink but he brings alot more to the broadcast than I expected.

Re: MLB

Posted: Wed October 15, 2014 12:31 am
by philpritchard
numbers wrote:
philpritchard wrote:
numbers wrote:I'm radically anti Rays. I don't think moving the team is enough. They should be contracted and a new expansion team with new ownership should be created.
This is meant to be a joke, right?
Obviously it's an exaggeration, but it pretty much sums up how I feel about that franchise.
Why do you hate them so much?

Re: MLB

Posted: Wed October 15, 2014 12:35 am
by numbers
philpritchard wrote:
numbers wrote:
philpritchard wrote:
numbers wrote:I'm radically anti Rays. I don't think moving the team is enough. They should be contracted and a new expansion team with new ownership should be created.
This is meant to be a joke, right?
Obviously it's an exaggeration, but it pretty much sums up how I feel about that franchise.
Why do you hate them so much?
They dont draw any fans, regardless of how the team is doing.

They take all the revenue sharing money they get and stick it in their pockets.

They play in a ridiculous mockery of a stadium that has to have special pinball rules for when balls bounce off of the catwalk.

They dont even entertain the thought of resigning their star players.

They let things like service time play a key role in player development.

I could go on and on. Every year that goes by that baseball continues to ignore what's going on down there it becomes more disgraceful.

Re: MLB

Posted: Wed October 15, 2014 12:36 am
by Lament
I find the Trop to be a charmingly bizarre place to see a game.

Re: MLB

Posted: Wed October 15, 2014 1:14 am
by philpritchard
numbers wrote:They dont draw any fans, regardless of how the team is doing.
That's a fair complaint, but it's also a Florida-wide issue with professional sports teams.
numbers wrote:They take all the revenue sharing money they get and stick it in their pockets.
I would be interested to see what kind of money the team actually makes. This could very well have a lot to do with the first issue.
numbers wrote:They play in a ridiculous mockery of a stadium that has to have special pinball rules for when balls bounce off of the catwalk.
There's one particular stadium that comes to mind when you use the term "ridiculous mockery of a stadium". I'm sure you can figure out which one it is. People just cut it some slack because it's really old.
numbers wrote:They dont even entertain the thought of resigning their star players.
This ties in to payroll. Don't you respect a team that loses its best players year after year and still manages to put a competitive team on the field?
numbers wrote:They let things like service time play a key role in player development.
Again, their aggressiveness in this regard ties back in to payroll, but every team in the league does this. Do you think Mookie Betts made his MLB debut June 29 because that's just the way it worked out? They delayed calling him up because of service time concerns.

Re: MLB

Posted: Wed October 15, 2014 1:37 am
by spike
i have a real problem with the "always october" parkas the managers are wearing this postseason

Re: MLB

Posted: Wed October 15, 2014 4:22 am
by Norah
numbers wrote:
philpritchard wrote:
numbers wrote:I'm radically anti Rays. I don't think moving the team is enough. They should be contracted and a new expansion team with new ownership should be created.
This is meant to be a joke, right?
Obviously it's an exaggeration, but it pretty much sums up how I feel about that franchise.
They're not the abomination they used to be. When the current ownership came into place they became one of the smartest teams in baseball.