nrockway

I mean he was pretty good in the MLB last year. I was just pointing out it was goofy they'd suspend a guy that long for smoking pot and it probably factors into him finally getting a shot in his 30s. I don't think the trade was necessarily a good idea, but he seems like a cool dude and I like his grind to the MLB. I also don't really care about losing a 17-year-old pitcher I've never heard of. What are the odds of a guy like that making it past A ball, let alone posting a 3.38 ERA in MLB? It's not like he's another Tatis Jr., Tatis had hype when he was traded, I think most of us are just learning about this guy today and his, you know, pretty good DSL stats. I also tend to think the Sox pitching people know what they're doing and probably know more about either of these players than I do. My complaint is that some of the guys already in the organization should be getting a shot, don't really need to bring in more relievers. What are you going to trade him for? Those trades amounted to nothing last season, so unless Booser is as good as Fedde, I don't see the point.

I just heard that Roki is on a plane to Toronto where he will be eating dinner with Yu Darvish's wife, or buying her a Porsche or something.

https://www.milb.com/news/twins-cam-booser-yankees-matt-marsh-suspended-237457420#:~:text=the second time.-,Two Minor Leaguers will miss 50 games due to violations,abuse for the second time. seemingly derailed his MLB career (plus a back injury). as of 2019, MLB removed pot from its banned substances list.

I bet they try him as a starter, right? He has the pitch mix and it's his fastball that got touched up (though sits at 95mph) despite being projected as someone who "needs to work on his offspeed to be a starter". The offspeed stuff is OK. He hasn't looked very good in the majors and had more success as a reliever at AAA. But Cleveland is a competent organization so I imagine it's a little more than a salary dump and I think he gets some starts or otherwise acts as a swingman. I potentially like the trade for CLE more than for AZ. AZ is replacing Walker with Naylor which seems like a downgrade or at least a lateral move. They could've paid Walker $6m more AAV than Naylor and kept him. I liked the Gimenez trade too, Cleveland trades their guys at the right time, I don't think Naylor or Gimenez are going to play better baseball than they have going forward. Naylor kills the Sox, but he kinda sucks, his 162 game average WAR is 1.6. Eerily close batting numbers as Andrew Vaughn at more than twice the price.

Also once upon a time they suspended him 50 games for smoking weed. That probably is a PED for pitchers though.

all time favorite player. quite the character too. chas mccormick is his spiritual successor (sans baseball ability).

yikes

Naylor's set to make $14mil and Manzardo will make $750k. Manzardo is likely better too.

he was playing for the Chicago Dogs a couple years ago. I don't see the point in continuing to bring in these relievers when there are like 20 guys in the minors who should be playing.

2005-2008 is what I was looking at in which he did not play the field at all, although he was essentially the DH from 1998 on, only (like you say) playing 131 games at 1B the rest of his career. I picked 2005 because he played 0 games at 1b after that year. However, his defensive stats were 'fine' over that period (1998-2004). Maybe moving to DH extended his career in terms of injuries, but I don't really see evidence of that. If the DH doesn't exist, I speculate Frank is still putting up the same hitting numbers and continuing to play 1b, his Hall of Fame legacy intact. I'd rather use David Ortiz as an example. That guy shouldn't be in the Hall for, primarily steroids, but also the fact that he could not play the field. Frank played four fewer seasons but compiled 6000 more innings in the field. Principally, I think baseball players should play both sides of the ball and I imagine Thomas, Thome, Edgar Martinez could have still played the field and had Hall of Fame careers if the DH never existed. And if they were forced into an earlier retirement, then maybe they weren't good enough at the entire sport of baseball. The sport isn't exclusively hitting and pitching. Frank Thomas is one of my favorite players and the homer in me says he would've made it no matter what. But I sorta think if you can't play the field anymore, if your bad defense outweighs your good offense, it's time to call it quits. I don't think the MLB ever really needed to make rules to make offense more prevalent (besides the dead ball). Baseball is a pretty slow sport, adding a couple more hits per game isn't going to make it entertaining for would-be fans who think the game is too slow. They can just watch cricket, there's plenty of hitting in that sport and consequently 'bowling', the other side of the ball, is pretty boring; there isn't as much depth as with baseball pitching. Pitchers hitting is also just fun to watch, kind of like comic relief, and there's an extra dimension of strategy when he is expected to hit. A pitcher hitting a home run is far more memorable than a DH hitting one. Bartolo Colon hitting a home run is an awesome moment for the sport, Eloy Jimenez grounding out to the shortstop 90% of the time is...not. I thought the system was fine when the AL had the DH and the NL did not. Standardization is boring and the relative lack of it in baseball is another aspect of the sport which makes it more interesting than, say, basketball or hockey. Watch how in 20 years every ballpark is going to have the exact same dimensions and feature a dome and I blame Ron Blomberg for it.

Truly, the latter. Defense is a relevant aspect of baseball, if you can't even play first base, you probably shouldn't be playing professionally anymore. Frank compiled another ~9ish WAR after moving to permanent DH, maybe that was the difference between him entering the Hall or not. But I wouldn't change my opinion on this for Homeristic reasons, I reckon he would've got in anyway, eventually. Thome is fundamentally an Indians player so I don't really care.

you can delete that post but my hoop dreams were definitely crushed by people who were actually good at baseball

Right? This is an all-time Sox performance. It's a tragedy he'll never get a real chance.

I hope he gets a chance. Hate the designated hitter, takes value away from a guy like Lorenzen or MadBum. Lorenzen would probably be one of the better hitters on this team...

this seems like a good idea until you want to play center field and cody bellinger goes to your high school.

He's still got a little bit of potential, I think. I wouldn't have paid him that much though. I'm surprised, good for him. Aren't the Nats notoriously bad at developing pitchers?

I’m thinking of that key and peele sketch. “Is there a Bruh-ee-say on this team? Stop playing with me, Bruh-ee-say!”

Maybe part of it is that there's less interest in the team and fewer fans are tuning in, but this just seems to be the way things are going. Why have a thoughtful, knowledgeable journalist when you can have a former pro athlete interview his buddy about what his favorite Nike shoe is. I reckon that's what people want to watch/listen to/consume these days, morons they've heard of that used to be good at the sport they like who have nothing interesting to say. Gen Z athletes are also wimps for only wanting to answer softball questions from their friends about their various sponsorships. Roger Angell could never have a career in 2024.

Pilfering the NL Central

Don't know what rule changes you could actually institute. A pitch over 100 mph is a ball? No more giving "max effort"? I guess this is what the MLB recommends: Doesn't seem particularly helpful. Rather than have a rule that says starting pitchers 'must' pitch 6 innings (delusional), why doesn't the MLB come up with its own version of Pitcher WAR that can be tied to arbitration payments and likely to free agent contracts? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the current WARs don't reward pitchers for going deep into games. A strikeout in the first inning will be worth as much as a strikeout in a pitcher's 7th inning of work. Yes, you can potentially rack up more WAR by throwing more innings, but there's something useful about a pitcher that gets outs deep into games that isn't adequately recognized. Fangraphs makes a 'leverage' adjustment for relievers, there should be something similar for starters. Will pitchers regulate themselves if there's a statistical and financial component to 'not giving max effort'? Couldn't hurt. Youth sports is the bigger issue to me, I feel somewhat sorry for millionaires blowing out their elbows and shoulders, I feel worse about the kids who will never play professionally. Especially the Latin kids because they're obviously being fed drugs from a very young age and MLB turns a blind eye to it. What if scouts aren't allowed to report the velocity of players under 18 to teams anymore, else face a fine? That seems unlikely and like a wonderful incentive for even more corruption. Gotta do something though, I just don't know what MLB could do. Wouldn't mind seeing more two+ inning relief pitchers though, interested to see what "regulate the availability of pitchers on a roster" might mean.

right! more than moderately annoyed, that guy rocks.

He kinda sucks at hitting and doesn't really fit anywhere except center field. A good team probably wants a better-hitting first baseman and they have PCA to play center. Perfect fit on the Yankees, I love this for them, they look to be a better team despite losing Soto. Think the Cubs definitely could've gotten more than a reliever/salary dump though. I'd be more upset about not retaining a lot more of his salary (they gave Yankees $5m) to get back an actually good player. Maybe they spend it on a player. Unlikely. Why am I getting the feeling that Yoan Moncada will be their starting third baseman?

also, Brewers catching coach guy strikes again!

I forget who they dumped to keep Chuckie, but I remember being moderately annoyed.

Five more years of "Rate"! Why didn't they rebrand to something smart like "The Winners"? It's just good marketing. I would probably buy insurance (or whatever they sell, I haven't figured it out) from "The Winners". They might change their logo to a thumbs up too. Still sad Wintrust didn't win the bid. Like Rate, I don't totally know what they do, but the name inspires confidence.