Eminor3rd

Wait, what did Buck say about Moncada? Also, Evan Williams has to love that ad break, lmao

For sure. We used to only have one Micker Adolfo, now we have ten. Stack enough up and a few will hit.

Feel free to donate for increased web hosting.

Murakami with that easy pop.

Tough to lose when a dude hits three homers and one is a grand slam

I know that a lot of what I'm about to type is NOT what you're saying -- I don't mean to put words in your mouth. But some thoughts and reactions for the sake of the entire conversation: - When people rail against the bunt, they are railing against the sacrifice bunt. The bunt-for-hit is an entirely different animal, and no significant group of people has an issue with it if it's used in a situation where it has a good chance to be successful. - It's easy to say you love something when it works, and easy to ignore it in the much more frequent instances when it doesn't. Cesar was only safe because Jose Ramirez made a throwing error. Ramirez probably only makes that error because the pitcher almost ran him over. If you ran that same play ten times, Cesar is certainly out more often than he is safe, and probably by a large margin. - People hate the sacrifice bunt because it leads to fewer runs in almost every situation. Very few people disagree that smallball is fun, but what's even more fun is winning games. Generally speaking, people want the team to do the thing that makes them most likely to win. - Even ignoring the lowered run expectancy of a typical sacrifice bunt, there is a significant rate of failure in even making the bunt play. I watch a ton of Japanese baseball, and they bunt probably literally ten times more often than MLB. They are also WAY better at executing the bunt, and even they fail (pop-up, foul out, lead runner cut down, etc.) a shockingly high percentage of the time -- like probably 20% of the time. It is significantly more likely that the batter will fail to execute the bunt than it is that the defense will fail to record the out. All of the above said, I didn't have any issue with Cesar's bunt. He did it because he thought it was the best way to get on base, he thought the defense wasn't ready, and he figured the sac bunt situation was the worst case result. I don't think it was a bad play all. But it doesn't make any sense to take an instance where a bunt works and try to apply it to an argument about bunting in general, outside of context. All of the above stands despite Cesar's bunt being a good play; don't take a good bunt and use it to argue in support of bad bunts.

Absolutely not.

The Dodgers did it once, it was locking up their own guy, and it was at a rate that doesn't stop them from doing anything else. The White Sox have just done it twice with Hendriks and Kimbrel, and it was acquiring another team's guy at peak value, and they have something like a quarter of their payroll tied into it. I'll admit that you found an exception that doesn't quite fit the mold I laid out for success, but I don't think it disproves the general rule, and I think the Sox (in this manner, buying bullpen pieces at peak value in lieu of other upgrades) look more like the Rockies two years ago with their strategy than they look like the Dodgers. But I do agree with the need to put the pedal down. I'm not asking for them not to be aggressive, I just see them repeatedly being aggressive in ways that don't feel like the best choice available.

If you look at fraction of payroll, that's not really true. As far as the second sentence goes -- yeah, I guess I'm just noticing that this is looking more and more like a short window of contention with each transaction that's made, and maybe I just need time to come to terms with that.

I just, I don't know... It's a lot of money tied up in a lot of short-term, high risk value. The only other team in recent history that decided to dump this much money into the back-end of their bullpen is the fucking Rockies, and we're dumping money AND player talent into it. I think there's a good reason that the progressive teams sell off good bullpen pieces every year and seem to find a way to make new ones out of thin air. There are methods for maximizing raw stuff, but these guys typically don't have enough tricks to make it last very long. I know Kimbrel has made a whole career of it, but he also looked completely destroyed for the two season prior to this. Once again, the Sox are making an upgrade, but doing it in a very inefficient way with a fiscal policy that doesn't have much room for inefficiency. I just hope it works.

My hot take is that I don't like this. I don't think Kimbrel is AT ALL a guarantee to be good for the next year and a half. Heuer was a good bet to bounce back based on his FIP/xFIP, meaning this very well may not be AS MUCH of an upgrade as the name value indicates.

What the f

In this case, the price is going to be determined by the number of serious suitors, not the free agent market value of his contract.

You can’t shut him down because you have no one else who can pitch.

Preller does his job like we all play OOTP.

I get that, but the net is that they look like the most talented team in the league, and with several years left in the window. I don't think any Padre fans anywhere are feeling any stress from losing the Snell trade.

Yeah I think you're in the minority. Also, I don't think any of those 20 flourishing prospects will be Tatis, lol.

Yes, I believe you're arguing with someone who agrees with you.

Yes, Frazier (bigger) and Story (splashier).

If you wanted this upgrade to be bigger and splashier, you probably don't realize how empty the farm system has become. For what the team could afford to give up, a random live arm and taking on a contract, this is the type of upgrade that was available. And, it IS an upgrade, even if it isn't a massive one.

Read the rest of the sentence.

I've always liked this guy, was very underrated with the Phillies. It does seem like he's declined a bit, but he's a good OBP who has found some power, and his numbers this year have been dragged down by a low BABIP, so there's room for the right kind of regression. This is a good pickup IMO.

Well it didn't happen, but it had legs, haha: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/07/padres-rangers-discussing-scenarios-involving-eric-hosmer-joey-gallo.html

Weird?

The problem is if the Sox have to give up something significant for Story, then it still would have been better to get Escobar.