Useful Idiot

The 3 or so years where the team was making no effort to compete, nudged me into a mindset where I found other ways to enjoy baseball. I absolutely thrilled on the following play last night, because I knew it was ripping the guts out of Yankees fans everywhere.

Okay thanks, I musta lost eye contact due to all the waves?

Agreed, plus to me it just seem like betting that Mize, Skubal, and Manning will all continue an upward arc to unfettered success ....is kinda long odds. It will be great if it happens, but have a solid contingency in place, in case there is a bump in the road.

Perhaps you are right, they did concede that he had disappointed. But their optimism that he will grow stronger makes me fear that they remain optimistic

So, they don't expect to make changes in the outfield, Soto is set as closer, they expect Willi C to develop power as he gets stronger, Schoop and Cabrera will continue to share first base......sounds like they are pretty content Maybe a shortstop, maybe a starting pitcher....maybe a catcher....

Al's portrayal of the Robbie Grossman signing being a "big splash" was discomforting

If you read the published sources I provided, there is ample evidence to support what I said.

Sorry, your turn to "put up". Please provide evidence of this healthcare insurance you spoke of earlier.

Put 2 acquired proven starters in the rotation, and move Peralta and Alexander into the pen, and then move Jiminez and Garcia back to Toledo. Then, once Boyd is rehabbed, decide who you want to start trading.

Clearly there are published works that support my earlier statement, you asked, and I provided. I believe that it's your turn now to prove your side of the argument. Show me evidence that Major League Baseball players are covered by health insurance that includes elective procedures.

You can do a search for "player opt's for Tommy John surgery" and will get quite a few hits. Garrett Anderson should be one of them. There was also a mindset for a while that getting TJ surgery would enable a player to perform afterwards superior to what he originally was...which while that concept was disputed, it was used as a rationale in some players ELECTING to go with TJ surgery instead of alternative strategy commonly called "conservative care" https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2785817-garrett-richards-reportedly-opting-to-have-tommy-john-surgery-out-for-season Tommy John's own son is a doctor who believes that players OPT for the surgery often when it's unneeded : https://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/tommy-john-surgery-evolution-and-an-alternative-to-being-cut/#:~:text=A total of 296 out,requires between 12-18 months.

Personally, after the way the 2021 season shook out for Boyd, I don't think he is in a position to bargain from strength in arbitration. So he'll have a strong incentive to settle before hand. How the Tigers proceed might be interesting. If they want to play hardball, they might non-tender him, and then hope to stiff him with a lower figure than he currently was making. If the Tigers go out and get top tier FA pitching this off season, then I think the non-tender and then resign at a lower figure strategy makes sense. BUT, if they do not go out and catch a whale, then I think they will negotiate and sign a deal with Boyd prior to arb.

My curiosity is based upon a desire to know with facts, not opinion. A lot of the surgeries that major league players get, are elective. How many insurance companies cover elective surgeries?

These were your EXACT words: "Don't you have to extend a QO? To get arbitration?" I was trying to clarify that the proper terminology related to arbitration was "final" offer, and not "qualifying offer" as your comment attempts to suggest. It has nothing to do with your personal opinion of Boyd or your dreary assessment of what you'd like to see done with him

Well yes, that is my understanding. The team needs to have it's strategy crystal clear going in. If the Team makes any final offer, they run the risk that the arbitrator might sign with the player, and then they are locked in THAT IS THE MAIN INCENTIVE we see when we hear about a team "avoiding arbitration" by negotiating a new contract with the player before going in to arbitration. Alternatively, we often read in the records where a player is "granted free agency" That can be a situation where the involved parties were unable to reach an agreement, the ball club did not want to put a figure in front of the arbitrator for fear they might side with the player.....so the ball club non tenders the player, they become a free agent, AND THEN THE ORIGINAL BALL CLUB can still sign them later after the player has a chance to test the market, and see if there is much interest. My personal opinion, but I believe that in such a scenario, the ball club is gambling that not too many other ball clubs are going to be interested in paying what the player is asking.....so the clubs decision to non-tender might be seen in the light of a "dose of reality" If, on the other hand, the ballclub has genuine apprehension about exposing such a player to free agency, that is their incentive to bargain in good faith and avoid arbitration in the first place

Perhaps you could share a little understanding on the following: Who is going to be paying for Boyd's surgery? O always had the uninformed opinion that the ball clubs pay for this sort of thing. If they intend to non-tender him, then they can't be too wild about paying for a surgery that does not present a tangible benefit to them? I'm sure that Boyd could easily afford it out of his own pocket, but that's not the way I've always thought it worked. Perhaps there is some "double platinum" version of workman's comp that also includes elective surgeries?

Well, I think that the concept you prefer personally would be if they "non-tendered" Boyd, but in the context of the arbitration process, (which is what we we discussing) the CORRECT terminology would be final offer, and not as you stated "qualifying" offer. They may choose to nontender him as a means of avoiding arbitration....but that is a separate matter.

Thank you, I really failed to appreciate (or care, for that matter) of a possible distinction. But now that you have primed the pump...in the baseball arbitration process, the arbitrator is not free to devise his own compromise solution, he can side with either the organization, or with the player...he must pick from the best and final offers placed on the table....so...doesn't that clear the hurdles of what you describe as an arbiter?

duplicate deleted

Correct term is "final" offer. Both sides submit what they are willing to accept, and the arbiter picks from either/or

Really? Why is that?

Nothing wrong with a little schadenfreude, But would you enjoy seeing the Red Sox fail in a one game WC matchup, or on a grander stage? Seeing despair in the faces of the fans of a team that we loath can be very gratifying

I think if I had my preference, we'd sign two quality FA starters, and move Alexander and Boyd (yes, I said Boyd) into the pen to replace two obvious sore spots. See if/how Boyd recovers in limited duty.

Different fans get different ideas how to fix what's broken, and often a zero sum game unfolds where one fan's preferred solution precludes those of the others. I think that's where some of the snark we see here originates. I believe the real consensus here is that patience only goes so far, and now the pressing priority is results. Which is going to be tempered by the organization's sincerity regarding it's willingness to spend.

I think it's enjoyable to watch baseball for a couple weeks without the heavy emotional investment of wondering what my team will do next to screw things up. I actually enjoyed seeing JV, Max, and J.D. win their rings...