iamshack

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 02:26 PM) The Cavs cannot beat the Warriors (w/ Durant). The Cavs have 0 flexibility to do anything significant outside of something stupid like trading for Melo's corpse. Going out to LA they (Bron, PG, etc) have more options/draft picks/younger talent. Still have to make it through the Warriors, but they'd have a better shot than the Cavs do. Yeah, I just think he is more likely to take a step back than anything that way. As much as people say this series was not competitive, if Cleveland wins game 3 like they should have this could have been an awesome series.

QUOTE (kwill @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 01:24 PM) I just had the same thought. I hope Shields replaces Holmberg in the rotation with Holmberg returning to the pen as a long reliever. He has done an excellent job but they are asking a great amount of innings from the bullpen. We really don't have a starter who consistently goes deep into games with Quintana struggling and Rodon yet to make his debut. On a different point, I am interested to see what they do with the likes of Gonzalez, Holland and Shields at the deadline. I think the Sox would be smart to find a team who would take a salary dump for Shields. Hopefully, He performs well enough to be dealt. Holland could probably net a lottery ticket or 2. I think Arizona could be a good match for him. I would love to see Jordan Guerrero, Tyler Danish, Reynaldo Lopez and Matt Cooper all get shots at starting at some point this year even if it is only a few start for some of them. Why would you not just continue to stretch Holmberg out?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 12:55 PM) He is not at all conditioned to start right now. Dude started exactly 1 game this season before this run of emergency starts. Oh alright...I was going to say...he doesn't get past 5 innings because we always take him out

QUOTE (Lillian @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 12:50 PM) Davidson is the type of hitter who would probably not succeed at being a bench player. He is the slugger type, who needs to get in a groove, as he seems to be, at the moment. He's young enough, and has several years of control. It would make more sense to keep developing him, including his defense, and let him hold down 3RD. No one is pushing him, and it will likely be at least 2020, before Burger is ready to challenge anyone for that spot. Or even LF if need be.

Why did we pull Holmberg?

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 11:04 AM) It would be a better shot than the Cavs have now. There's nowhere in the East they can go They can go to the Finals every year, for starters. Not sure I follow...

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 10:21 AM) I'd become the laziest person in the world. Live on a beach somewhere with a beer in my hand 24/7. So the money wouldn't really change you, either...

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 09:46 AM) You can hit the ball hard and still have un sustainable BABIP. Avi is not going to have a BABIP of over .400 on October 1st. He might have one over .370 though. ZIPS sees .347 the rest of the way, which tells you that ZIPS has "baked in" his batted ball improvements. Personally I'm more curious if he can finish with an ISO over .200, which would be a big mark for him. He needs to keep hitting his XBH. Yeah, I get it. But all you can ask the guy is to keep barrelling it up. The rest will happen as it will.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 10:01 AM) The Cavs are cooked, they can't beat the Warriors and have 0 flexibility to do anything to bigly improve the team. GM Lebron screwed them with all the money dumped to Smith/Thompson/Shumpert. The only option they have is to trade Love somewhere. Going to the West to pair with Paul and Wade isn't going to help him beat the Warriors either.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 08:17 AM) Next year Lebron is going to join Paul in LA (with Clippers). We will see who else is there with the Clippers...I presume Wade will be there as well. I really hope he isn't that stupid.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 09:51 AM) I would travel and invest in properties around the world. Then I would get bored. I really think my life is more fulfilling the way it is now then if I were to have hit the lottery or something quick and easy. I have the things that I want but I have to work hard for them and they don't come all at once. I live a very satisfying life. Now once I am old and no longer interested in working hard and reaching goals then talk to me about winning the lottery then. That is an interesting comment, Shipps...I'd like to think I really wouldn't change all that much - that my goals and challenges might changes, but that I would still strive very hard to accomplish the things I'd like to accomplish. I don't know that I would ever really be able to just "relax." I think I would always be focused on something.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 09:42 PM) Not that Rick Hahn is bad at identifying talent, but it's not his strong point. The reason he was such a sought after GM is due to how contract savvy he is. Chris Sale was always going to bring a haul, but it was Hahn's shrewd negotiations that probably netted the Sox both Moncada and Kopech. Without the contract they had in place for Eaton, there's no way Washington is giving up all 3 of Giolito, Lopez, and Dunning. If they got Luis Robert simply because they are paying everything upfront instead of pushing this off, thus making Robert more money as a result, the dude is amazing. People give him s*** because the Sox have not put a good team on the field under his regime thus far, but that's been more s***ty depth and less about what he's actually done. He's worked some very impressive trades and not actually given up much, if anything, in actual talent. And as much as people want to question or allocate accountability to Kenny or Rick for certain moves over the last few years, they actually appear to be forming a great team. Rick is a more patient and effective negotiator, whereas Kenny is able to spend his time evaluating talent. In these roles, I feel as though the two of them form a stronger front office than we've had since perhaps the late 80's/early 90's.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 08:43 PM) Cool Avi stat https://mobile.twitter.com/JRFegan/status/875190193732685825 He's the main reason I tune in. Couldn't agree more on Tim.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 03:46 PM) Nats' pen getting beaten up again by Braves, but not high leverage guys. Well, Treinen sometimes is. He was their closer initially I think...

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 02:02 PM) Soto is likely untouchable along with Robles. Saw someone say he's a top 15 prospect heading into next year. Fathom! Welcome! And Fedde?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 01:36 PM) I could be mis-remembering, but isn't Jones deal just a couple million every year? If you figure that the roster spots costs $600k at minimum, you're only talking about being out a few million over the course of a few seasons. And if he's good, he could stand to earn much more than that in arbitration. He's basically making $8 million through his arb years and then we have three option years where he can make up to another $15-18 million total depending on certain things happening or not happening. So he can ultimately make about $25 million over 6 years. What is the max Kahnle might reasonably make over his next 6 years? I suppose maybe it's worth doing? I dunno, I think I would wait at least a year?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 01:36 PM) It hasn't been said yet by the organization, but I really would bet money that their willing to pick up a large chunk of money in a deal went down a lot with the signing of Luis Robert. That is a $50 million check that Jerry and the partners have to write now. Are they going to be willing to write another $10 million check to Washington? Eh, I can't see it. The cost is only sunk if the assumption is that they couldn't take less in a trade to get someone to take the contract. I think if they thought they were getting the right player, they would do it. But as I said earlier, if they are just getting the Nats 4th rated prospect, I think you are correct.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 01:28 PM) The Nats owner nixed the Robertson trade because of money. He nixed signing Greg Holland because of money attached to a vesting option. To think they will go out and trade a bunch of top prospects for highly paid guys seems very improbable. That was before he had Dusty crying to the press every week about needing pen upgrades.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 01:22 PM) I would think so -- the Nate Jones deal is so cheap that it would make pretty much ANY decent player more valuable. Even if Kahnle busts entirely, the amount of salary he'd be owed each year is just a step above rounding error. When compared to what you might lose out by having to pay him arbitration? I'm not sure I agree here.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 01:21 PM) Price-wise, your logic is sound, but it's predicated on the false assumption that market price for players remains stable over any significant period of time. Every time a trade happens in the MLB, the amount of supply AND demand in the market changes substantially. The buyer willing to pay the highest price for the player just left the market. Sure the Cubs were willing to give up Torres for Miller in 2016, but it is no longer 2016, the Cubs no longer have Torres, and the Cubs are no longer buying relievers. Also, Robertson isn't nearly as good as Miller, and the world has almost universally agreed that the trade was an overpay that only made sense because the Cubs ended up winning the title. There are so many dynamic, unique factors to each trade season that it just doesn't make sense to use previous season's trades as baselines for player value, IMO. I agree with you, and made a similar argument in regards to the inefficiencies of the market, however, it is undeniable that GMs do EXACTLY that which you say it makes no sense to do. This is a result of this being a bilateral market where information is not transparent. And btw, yes, the Cubs no longer have Torres, but the Nationals do have Robles, and absolutely have the ability to achieve the same end result as the Cubs did last year.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 01:18 PM) I would assume so. Teams would have the financial certainty and control. Not sure at this point, for the same reasons that were argued for him not bringing back a top prospect - maybe not enough history there.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 12:45 PM) Not sure they can really afford to acquire 2-3 impact pieces given the current status of their farm? If I am the Nationals I fully roll the dice and go for it in 2017 and 2018, who knows when they will have this good of a chance again? The NL East is weak, you could secure home field advantage and have a real shot. I'd be extremely hesitant to deal Robles as he is directly a replacement for Harper after next season. I mean let's face it, no one is f***ing replacing Harper...I get that this kid is a great prospect and will play the same position, but Bryce Harper, he is not. I agree with you on going all in. Imagine an organization that limited Strasburg's innings a few years back because they were so certain he was going to pitch them to multiple World Series now fails to shore up its bullpen while it has Bryce Harper, and therefore loses in the playoffs. Then Bryce Harper leaves. How will the FO be looking then? Now also imagine if they go out and get that bullpen solidified with 2-3 good pieces, and they go on to win or at least compete for a World Series. When Bryce leaves, I don't think the FO will be taking heat, even if they had to move a guy like Robles to win while Harper was here. Not saying I wouldn't want to keep Robles...but if the choice was between having my best chance of winning while Harper is here and leaving my roster exposed for the next year or two in the playoffs because of some kid currently in high A ball at the moment, I know which direction I am going in.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 12:28 PM) The Nationals do have other options: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/dusty-ba...e-some-options/ But not all of those options are necessarily great ones. Doolittle has been very injury prone, and I'm not sure I would want to rely on him staying on the field to anchor a world series run. Herrera has had a down year, and the Royals are not necessarily out of the division race yet. Colome is not going to come cheap in a trade. Hand won't come cheap in a trade. Twins are in first place, why would they sell as of right now? Mason could be an option, although his contract is not all that cheap for a soon to be 37 year old player. Neshek seems like a fit, but not necessarily as your world series closer. Ramos is an ok option, but far from dominant as of late. He's due a hefty raise via arbitration. Yeah, one would think they would want to pair someone like Neshek and Robertson....two different styles... IMO, they need more than just a closer though...they need 2-3 pieces.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 12:10 PM) Yes, agreed. I just think I'm saying that Rizzo would never ask for three relievers in the first place. Let me ask you this...do you think it is improbable that they go out and get 2 relievers on the market?

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 11:51 AM) This is really important. You don't want to work too hard either as it puts too much stress on your physiology. An even better way to determine you target training zone for heart rate is the karvonen formula. Here is how you calculate it: The Energy Efficient/Recovery Zone – 60% to 70% The Aerobic Zone – 70% to 80% The Anaerobic Zone – 80% to 90% The Red Line Zone 90% to 100% Wikipedia does an excellent job of describing the Karnoven Method: Target Heart Rate = ((Maximum Heart Rate – Resting Heart Rate) × %Intensity) + Resting Heart Rate So, for someone with a Maximum Heart Rate of 180 and a Resting Heart Rate of 70 we have two examples: For A 50% Target Heart Rate: ((180 − 70) × 0.50) + 70 = 125 bpm For a 85% Target Heart Rate: ((180 − 70) × 0.85) + 70 = 163 bpm This is really nice as it not only takes the individual into account with the resting heart rate but also individualizes the day with it as well. Still not as accurate as a VO2 max but it is about the best an individual can do. Yeah, I have seen some VO2 max test results that are incredibly different than typical default type zones, but in general, I think for most people, either of these get you pretty close. It isn't as though you are going to see drastic differences if you are 5 beats off or something. I generally train in zone 2 (65-75%) for 3-4 hours a week, and try to do an hour or so of zone 3 (75-85%), and then one or two workouts where I spend a few minutes above 85% every few weeks. If you have a heart rate monitor, you can link it to some great apps out there to create graphs and charts for your training. I prefer MotiFIT.