casimir

If they could've gotten some range out of SS, keeping Cabrera at 3B would have been fine. Then again, there's more wear and tear at 3B than at 1B. Then again, had he been the 3B for longer, it might have forced him to keep up with conditioning better. There's an alternate universe out there where Cabrera is in shape and Hunter catches that ball in front of the Fenway bullpen.

Looking at Cabrera's stats to see where he might land, and I guess I am surprised he had only 2 seasons at 3B. For some reason I thought he had a bit more time there. But I don't know, given the dearth of 3B that the Tigers have had over the years, that 14.6 for those two season might still get him high on the list.

Nah, we can't do that anymore. Tik tok 'Murica won't allow that. (But, yes, you have a very valid point.) Edit to add: This is not to say that in this specific case that one side is more evil but also more right. Its just possible for nuance and layers to be involved in these cases. Case in point is the timing of the negotiations. Both sides are playing chicken with the other and its just going to screw over the fans and spring training economies. The lockout occurred in, what, the beginning of December and neither side put forth any official offer until the last few weeks? Come on, both sides are at fault here.

Come on, you have to pick a side. Its either all in for one or all in for the other. Its just like politics. One side of the aisle is pure and saintly while the other side is the absolute worst of the worst.

The owners might go for that, but the players goal is to get as much as possible, so that maintains the divide between them.

It still surprises me that MLB minimum salary is lower than NHL minimum salary.

I thought I saw/heard something about non 40 man roster players still showing up to camp. But I don’t know how reliable that (my memory or the source) is.

https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/chet-lemon/ Read it.

A darn good CF for being a converted 3B. Another thing about Lemon, he led the league in HBP for 4 out of 5 consecutive seasons. And another thing…… happy 67th birthday, Chet.

I think they can be separate, but a lot of times they are in tandem. Oakland has a low payroll, but they ain't tanking.

Come on....

Every time I think of Lemon, my mind's eye has him catching a lazy fly ball with his mitt just barely over his left shoulder, right about the height of his head.

Can't wait to see how Lebron James tries to weasel his way back to Cleveland.

Is that how most people view it now? I don't. The Angels fall into the losing record category the last few seasons, but I don't think that can be called tanking.

I don't think winning was at the forefront of what they were trying to accomplish. Do you? I don't think a case can be made for that theory at all. I think a better case can be made for losing on purpose. Or, at the very least, they put forth a half assed effort to win. Look at all of the FA deals that they made for a few offseasons. All short term and flippable. Look at the "talent" that they chased down. How were they going to build a winner with that flotsam and jetsam? The Tigers' front office priority over the past few seasons was to build up the farm system, both in terms of talent and in terms of systemic development, and also to build up the analytics. I don't think it can be argued that it was necessary. I don't like my team being associated with tanking, but what they do is out of my control. They tanked. It probably sucks to admit it for some because there seems to be a certain element of cheating the system attached to it. Hey, I'd much rather see them emulate the success that the Cardinals have had the last 3 decades. Put a winning product out there more often than not and be competitive almost every season. Have a reasonable expectation to make the playoffs when heading up from Lakeland, and any team in the playoffs has a shot at the crown. That's the goal. Hopefully we can see that going forward with the front office reorganization that they've gone through.

That's a good point.

I'm not sure that I agree that tanking is a perception. It has definitely gotten a lot more notoriety lately, and I think a lot of that has to do with the recent "Follow the Process" that the Philly 76ers employed. I think that the Astros of the early 2010s employed. I think there are some losing teams that have lost because of different reasons, and tanking could be one of the variables. I guess what do we mean we say tank? I consider it to be putting the best draft choice possible as the top priority for a pro sport season. If a team engages with that as the primary goal, that's tanking (in my opinion). There could be numerous other reasons for a team performing poorly. The 2014 Red Sox (71-91) fell 26 Ws short of their 2013 regular season record and didn't look anything at all like a defending World Series champion. It wasn't at all tanking, not a chance. The Pirates? Are they tanking or just a badly run organization? And I suppose while I am punching at them, let's be honest, the Tigers were trash for a good while before Dombrowski/Leyland and I don't think it can be called tanking.

Gibson's defensive career is kind of silly. Came up as an OF, shoved to RF despite a poor arm, then reclaimed a good chunk of CF duties later in his career. I guess some of that is the design of the Tigers defensively which didn't exactly follow the Tom Emansky videos.

The mentioned this during the Pistons' game last night. It sounds like dimensia hit quickly and there have been strokes and other issues in the past year.

That's on my resume.

Might as well put Darko in to finish up the game.

Go look at the game by game results. A couple of 20 run games in April. About a dozen runs scored in each game of a 3 game series in Minnesota, and then again in 3 straight games in Baltimore. Basically first place for 2 months straight until the wheels came off in June & July.

Pythag of 81-81 to go along with the actual of 75-87.

"Essential" might not have been the right word to use there for basketball. But I think tanking in basketball is more rampant than in baseball. The disparity in between teams in basketball is greater than in baseball.

The number of lottery teams can be debated. I think, at least the way I look at things, its difficult to distinctly order MLB teams 1-30 because of the parity from one team to another. I tend to look at MLB teams more in tiers. Now, sure, there are the 2003 Tigers and 2001 Mariners were you look at the standings and see that they are weeks of wins below/ahead of the next place team. But in general, is 79-83 much different than 82-80? I agree that the lottery probably should be low on the list of priorities. I don't know if a lottery is as essential for a sport like baseball as it is for basketball. The top basketball talents are basically top pro league ready on draft day. And the difference in team composition and game play really place more importance on a singular player in basketball vs baseball. Baseball doesn't have that immediacy or individual player importance on a team (I'm struggling to find the right phrase here) that basketball does. I think the DH issue needed to be solved. I think they need to improve the flow of the game (which may or may not be something that gets rolled into a CBA, but since they are at the table, it needs to be discussed). They need to figure out the finances for sure. I don't think an expanded playoff is necessary, but I think it could be adjusted. And maybe its time to realign geographically. Here's a good one that I heard last night on MLB radio. The minimum salary in the NHL is lower than in MLB. How is that possible given the revenue streams between the two sports? I suppose that's possible because the top guys aren't getting $20M-$30M per season. It was just strange to hear that about the minimum salaries.