Leaderboard

I still think the near term priority is getting the structure of the organization in the right direction. Its not to say that the on field is to be ignored. Certainly there are gains to be made there, beginning with continuous development of prospects and hopefully finding rebounds among the numerous veteran bats that disappointed.

I am loving watching all these average or worse players get signed in free agency to teams other than the Tigers. I am actually excited when I see another marginal name and it’s not attached to us. Let other teams waste money on trash. Great work Captain Harris.

Absolutely, playing at the top end of the market was never going to work out for us now, and they may have decided that even the middle of the market is overpriced in years for them. That's really what the crux of the biscuit for the Tigers is: it's more about the years than the money, and we don't want to throw more than a year at anybody because we don't want multi-year marginal players hanging around and screwing up our plans in, say, 2025.

What the Beatles were by far the best at was writing a huge volume of songs reflecting elite musicality with irresistible hooks. Regardless of which era you point to, they knew the exact zeitgeist to tap into with the songs they were creating. Especially Lennon and McCartney, who were great from practically day one. They were so good that a motivated George Harrison, who was at best a meh songwriter in 1964, elevated himself to become their equal by 1969 specifically because he spent those five years learning at their feet. They have several dozen songs that even 50+ years later hold up as among the greatest pop songs in history, and I’m not even including their solo work, of which there are perhaps a couple dozen more you could add to their group canon. No other individual or act comes close.

I for one am relieved that our Castro void has been filled. 😎

Pass. I found him awfully unlikable enough before his suspension.

I also think of the AB’s that went to Reyes, Candy and the Castro boys as addition through subtraction

Meadows, Schoop and Baez would be 5-6 wins, Riley Greene and Spencer Torkelson might be a 4-5 wins. So 9-11.... very rough from looking at WAR. Add in Spencer Turnbull, whose presence is probably worth another win or two if he performs well. Could maybe throw Jake Rogers into the mix, but I'm less sold.

So, Meadows, Schoop, and Baez hit at career averages. Full & healthy reasonably good seasons from Greene and Torkelson. How many wins does that add on its own?

I sort of agree, although it's not clear to me that even a guy like Conforto was going to move the win needle all that much for a team that only won 66 games last year. That's a big reason why big named free agents tend to end up on teams on the precipice of contending, and it's not just about money.... similar to the "last mile" problem in transportation engineering and logistics, free agency is the thing that gets you across the finish line and from 80-85 wins to 90+ wins. Versus being something that you can completely remake a roster sub-70 win roster with. There are exceptions, but that's generally not how it works. A lot of the ground is gonna have to be made up from what is on the roster, and honestly I think it can be if a lot of things go right this year.

AJ Pollock

With whats left on the market I think its kind of pointless to sign any of these 1-2 year guys that arent really going to move the win needle.

So long as nobody makes Raytheon rich is all

This remind me of Tommy Boy’s first attempt at a sales pitch where he sets the guy’s model car on fire.

I love what Harris has been doing this offseason. Focus on internal development and figure out what they have in their current prospects. This team isn’t going anywhere this season even with the benefit of being in the worst division in baseball. I’m not sure it really makes sense to spend at all in this market.

For over 150 years, no land battle has been fought on the American mainland. Oceans help, but the other primary reason is that for over 100 of those years we have an explicit policy of supporting allies closer to the things that threaten us, so that when those threats turn into hot conflicts, they happen 'over there' and not 'over here'. Does this policy have an element of cynicism and self-serving? Of course, yet it's still manifestly also in the interest of a party like the Ukrainians, who would just as soon win the battle for their land instead of becoming meat ground in the prelude to the US facing Russian at the Atlantic shoreline. Just because everyone's motives are not 'pure' does not mean a situation is still not a win-win.

But at the end of the day: 1) This conflict started when Vladimir Putin chose to invade. Lockheed or Raytheon or whoever didn't tell Putin to invade, he had agency and made the choice on his own recognizance. 2) The Ukrainians, who SB refers to as puppets, did not want Russia to invade and, when they did, they chose to fight back and solicited the help of the world in the process. In other words, they want our help. I have never claimed that there aren't ways in which the broader conflict might have geopolitical impacts that benefit the United States. But the chain of events that led to this situation originated in Moscow. Full stop. They are the reason we are here now. On another note, I would suspect that so.e folks who have spent years (correctly) identifying how ****ed up The War in Iraq was would be able to identify how similar Russia's role in this current conflict is similar to our role in Iraq. And would calibrate their criticism to conquest and nation-building accordingly, given that Russia's justification for the invasion included all about those things. But maybe it's too much to expect intellectual consistency.

Ragnow the only Lion selected to the Pro Bowl. St. Brown completely robbed as Lamb and McLaurin chosen ahead of him. Ex-Lions Slay, Diggs, and Hock all make the NFC team.

c'mon, man, just F all the way off already.