Dtwncbad

1 minute ago, VariousCrap said:

Dodger fans were pretty pissed at the time because of the McCourts.  This deal was a way for the new ownership to show they meant business.  It worked.  Constantly in the playoffs and huge attendance numbers since then.

Yes everyone knows they had lots of money to spend and they wanted to prove to fans they would spend and be that big market team instead of the cheap McCourt.

But the point is taking on bad contracts did not turn them around.

It was about showing the baseball fans what kind of ownership they were compared to past ownership. . .willing to go big to get skittle better to improve their (already in) playoff run.

34 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Your a real dumbass.  If you read carefully I said they turned it around quickly because they took on bad contracts. They didn't trade the farm.  The spent a lot of money and they turned around the disaster the McCourt created.   That was five F'n years ago!  It has nothing to do with the current team that dominating!

Let's see. . .the Dodgers won 86 games in 2011 and were squarely at the center of the pennant race when they made this big deal in 2012.

Uh, no this did not turn them around quickly.  They were already a strong winning team simply piling on additional expensive talent to supplement their chances.

Facts matter.  But I am the dumbass right?

1 minute ago, CanadianHalo said:

Yes but it's being reported he most likely isn't going to opt out. 

I figured he for sure would given his season but Heyman last reported he isn't expected to

I think he will opt out.  He should be able to easily either get 4 yrs more money or get a 5 year deal securing another $25 million.

Plus he can go to a team in better shape to contend.

I would bet plenty that he opts out.

14 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

We have better options in house than Tanaka...

Jun 6, 2017 - NEW YORK -- The New York Yankees' alleged ace, Masahiro Tanaka, is terrible.

http://www.espn.com/blog/new-york/yankees/post/_/id/96417/yankees-need-to-drop-masahiro-tanaka-from-rotation

And have you bothered to see that he has had only one bad month in May with an ERA over 8 while all the other months he is solid in the 3's?

The Dodgers had almost unlimited amounts of money and the new ownership simply wanted to put some names on the field for the fans while they built from within.

7 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

Don't take on other's bad contracts and get prospects for it! Sign bad contracts and give up draft picks and signing pool money!

The Dodgers got exactly zero minor leaguers in taking on half a billion dollars in bad contracts with Crawford, Beckett, and Gonzales.  So I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Nobody ever gets a legitimate top prospect to take a contract.  Maybe a marginal prospect. . .

Why not just sign a good player at a fair market price instead of clogging the mlb roster with poor performers that are expensive in hopes the marginal prospect somehow turns into superman?

I hate to pile on (I honestly do, I have been a huge Pujols fan forever), but the article starts out with "Angel slugger Albert Pujols. . ."

You honestly have got to stop this delusion.  He is not a slugger.  .376 slugging is in the bottom 9% of hitters in the AL.

I don't know where others draw the line, but how about at least being in the top half to be called a slugger?

3 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

 

That is exactly what they did.  That is what made the deal they made so genius.  They took on huge terrible contracts, but they also got a bunch of high end prospects with those contracts.

Name the high impact players on their roster that they acquired in taking on bad contracts.

9 minutes ago, stormngt said:

I agree with this strategy.  Free Agency is getting too expensive and too advantageous for the player with "opt out clauses" to have any value to the clubs.  Dodgers rebuilt quickly because they took bad contracts from the Red Sox.  Maybe we can do the same.

Seriously?  The Dodgers are not good BECAUSE they took a couple of bad contracts.  Look at that team with an honest eye and tell me their greatness is from taking bad contracts.

With one walk in his last 66 at bats and a career worst swing at balls out of the zone rate, Pujols really should not be drawing attention to himself on the subject of balls and strikes.

On 8/8/2017 at 9:15 PM, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don't know if this is sarcastic but I am pretty sure there is a zero percent chance Pujols is ever a coach or manager.

 

Really?  Zero percent?  I might go with "seems unlikely". . .

Tanaka had an opt out.

Valbuena needs to hit his way out of this slump this year.  Play him.  I don't want him going into next year still mired in a slump.

Maybe he slumps the whole year and then we know to cut bait.  But If this guy can get out of the rut, if that's possible, I want to get over the hump this year so we know.

Spending the at bats on that might be worth it.

The Angels will have money this offseason.

2 significant signings, one starting pitcher and one position player.

Signing a better pitcher frees up a number of back of the rotation arms to trade to address another position.

That makes two position upgrades.

Optimism says Cowart can check off another position in need.

That should improve the team enough to put them in the race at the trade deadline to pursue a targeted improvement.

So come August 2018, the Angels should be on the race with a stronger starting rotation and three significant positional upgrades (plus Cowart helping potentially).

Here are my choices to fill in the names.

Tanaka and Hosmer in free agency.

Trade pitching depth for an outfielder like Domingo Santana (Brewers have like 38 projectable OF bodies).

At trade deadline, trade for half a season of Manny Machado for the title run!

Simmons SS

Trout CF

Machado 3B

Hosmer 1B

Pujols DH

Santana LF

Calhoun RF

Maldonado C

Cowart 2B

Tanaka, Richards, Heaney, Skaggs, Shoemaker.

Here is my personal abbreviated way to determine MVP.

At the end of the season look at all the stats and data.

Now imagine you had a time machine to go back to the beginning of this season, and you get to hand pick players to build the best team possible.

Knowing what you know now, from stats and data, what player would you pick first if you wanted to build the best team possible?

That's the MVP.

Maybe I missed it noted elsewhere but. . . Trout hit the foul pole on the day Baylor died.  That gave me the chills remembering one of Baylor's most famous Angel moments.

I really really never understand the idea that being paid a lot should keep you in the lineup.  We see it all the time, and honestly, it is pretty stupid.

If I committed to a five year contract with some hack razor company that shipped me razors every month, and they ripped my face by using them, is it smart to keep using them because I am financially committed to pay for them?

Pujols star power is relevant.  But that part is fading.  He needs to be hitting 6th starting now.

Going forward, I hope the Angels are seriously not so stupid that they think their financial obligation should force them to play Pujols  (if there is another option better).

Why isn't the story simply that Joyce lost his composure and yelled at a fan? I don't need the details on what words he used.  I don't care.

Jeez.  I wrote about this exact nonsense no more than like a week ago saying how pathetic it is that the media foams at the mouth over Jeter every time a shortstop leaves his feet to throw.

Jeter is a HOF player.  I do not question that.  But I will say he is the most overrated player I have ever seen.

My favorite way to show it is that Jeter's lifetime WAR is  71.8 over 20 seasons.

Grich is 70.9 over 17 seasons.

Jeter is treated like Babe Ruth and Grich is treated like Johnny Ray.

It's a joke!

Does this mean he isn't eligible for the HOF?

When entire months go by with no posts, can this thread be retired yet?

5 minutes ago, Lou said:

i understand your positon and i disagree. He is banned from baseball and that includes the HOF. He's lucky there is any mention of him at all. 

Question: are all of these "greatest players" members of the HOF? 

The only things that were deliberately orchestrated were Rose's gambling on baseball, including betting on his own team's games, and his lying about it for 15 years. 

It was also quite deliberately orchestrated to add the HOF to what was covered in a lifetime ban after he agreed to a lifetime ban.

Pete is a piece of garbage, but that was wasn't on the up and up.

2 hours ago, Lou said:

It's not merely the HOF deciding to "emotionally punish" Rose.

There is a set rule. A rule that every player, manager and coach know, without exception. There is also a set penalty if you break the rule. Again, a penalty that every player, manager and coach knows, without exception.

He decided to break the rule (over and over and over...) knowing full well that his punishment would be a lifetime banishment. He was caught and MLB dolled out his punishment - a punishment Rose agreed to. 

It would be worse if they bent the rules for Rose because he was a great player. After all, if he hadn't been HOF worthy, a reinstatement wouldn't even be mentioned. What happens when the next guy is caught? Does he get a pass, too, or is that benefit reserved solely for HOF caliber players? 

 

I understand your position.

If you understood mine you would know why what you wrote above has literally nothing to do with my position.

I have no issue, at all, with Rose never being allowed to work in baseball or ever be allowed to even attend a game.  Starve him of a ceremony and never let him set foot there. . .whatever.

I just stop short of sacrificing historical accuracy.

I smell an element of deliberately punishing Rose personally in all of it and my opinion is that is worthless if it is at the expense of accuracy.

Rose is a jerk and if he were in the HOF he would probably get off on it.

But I don't care what Rose feels in this context and it feels pretty undisciplined to even consider it.

Does Rose "win" or "get away with it" if there is a bust of him there?  What in his brain?

I can't make myself assign any weight to that at all.

With a media not willing to actually bring up the subject, total silence on it, why would Albert not be fine with it?  Why would he not think everyone is happily drunk on his historical greatness when nobody around him is willing to say otherwise?

22 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

They recognize his being the all times hits leader.  They haven't stricken his name from the record books, they have his Reds and Phillies unis as well as his bats in the HOF.   So, if someone is looking for him, the memory of Pete Rose IS in the HOF...  

He's just not a HOFer.

  

The Hall of Fame has room after room of interesting stuff and memorabilia and displays.  Then you go into the rooms that is focused singularly, without any distractions, on "this is the group of players who were the greatest of all time."

Not including Rose in that room, like it or not, despite Rose personally feeling rewarded or deprived, makes tjat room historically inaccurate.

It's a subject people will disagree over forever, but here is the point I attempt to make.

When push comes to shove, being historically accurate should take priority over trying to emotionally punish Rose.  I don't care how he feels either way.

Imagine it this way.  If baseball had some other lousy player that they really wanted to punish, and they truly believed putting them IN the Hall of Fame would do the trick. . .should they do It?

Of course this is a silly what if.  I'm just using it to underscore my opinion that exclusion or inclusion is a pretty stupid thing to be used as a punishment when it really is a sidenote that players personally feel rewarded for being elected.  I think being historically accurate should drive it.

The argument that Rose is "there" in the other rooms of novelty and memorabilia means very little.  So is Mark Whiten for hitting 4 homers in a game.

That one room is the most important room and just be accurate.  Tell the truth on the plaque.  Pick words that make Pete's head explode in anger if you want, as long as they are accurate.