Tiger337

Probably not, but nobody is untouchable in the right deal. Skubal is really good, but also a significant injury risk. Of course, other teams understand that about them which might limit what the Tigers could get in a deal. Thus, it would probably be best to keep him. I just don't like to say "never".

I think players want to play in smaller divisions if the schedules are unbalanced as it means fewer long trips, but there is no advantage to them if the schedules are balanced. Players are highly competive people and given a balanced schedule, I believe they would like to see the most successful regular season teams make the playoffs. I do remember some of them suggesting elimination of divisions in a realignment.

Of course you can't sell a 14th or 15th place team in a league. Those are almost surely awful teams. You should be able to sell a 6th, 7th or 8th place team if you have 6 or more teams making the league playoffs. Just list the teams in order and draw a line at the playoff break point. It's easier to explain that to someone than "our team finished 2nd and the Red Sox finished 5th, but they are going to the playoffs and we are not." Fans only identify place in the division over place in entire league, because that is how it has been presented to them for years. Owners might not like big divisons because many of them have made their fortunes largely by marketing to simpletons. However, the last time they discussed realignment, I remember that a group of players wanted to eliminate divisions because they wanted to assure that the best teams during the regular season made the post-season and they felt (probably correctly) the owners wanted divisions to water down league and make it possible to get into the playoffs cheaply with an inferior team. Players also were not in favor of expanding the playoffs further. So, I hold out some slight hope that the players might make this an important issue in future negotiations, although I understand it will probably just be used as a bargaining chip.

What's going to hapen to him? Can he hit well enough to be a full-time DH? If not, why did they acquire him? Was it because they thought he could learn a position?

Much of that can be simulated based on past results. I think the only think you can't simulate well is the effect of a long layoff.

One thing I would definitely like to see is for them to eliminate divisions. Make the schedules as balanced as possible and just take the top 6 teams (or however many teams the televison networks think are necessary) in each league. There is no need for all the wildcard nonsense unless the schedules are unbalanced.

They could have fewer teams in the playoffs. That would my change in the format which I know won't happen. No, fans and media don't say that an inferior team dominated all year. What they do is twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why the inferior team won. "They wanted it more", "They were built for the playoffs", etc. Then they will point to something wrong with the more dominant team's roster construction suggesting they were built for the long haul but don't have the talent or character to compete in big games. And they agonize for years viewing them as a failure despite having a great season. I am not accusing people here of doing these things. Most people here are smarter than that.

Martinez/Castellanos would not have been kept forever, just until there were viable replacements. I am not a fan of completely tearing a team down without getting a decent return on your players and being left with a horrible team for years and years. I want to see them try to be reasonably competitive every year.

It's something Bill James came up with a long time ago based on the assumption that all teams are equal with every game having a 50% probaility of a win for each team.

I'd much rather have had the Tigers perform like the Braves during my lifetime.

The Braves just don't want it enough. They don't know how to win.

Anything is possible. Maybe the Tigers would have made the playoffs with some random luck. Maybe if the kept Candelario and then added Verlander at the deadline and had fewer injuries.

He had an 820 OPS his last four years with Detroit. He wasn't good, because he couldn't field, but he was hitting OK. The guy I really wish they kept though was Martinez.

I don't really like it. It's more a matter of not liking the status quo. I don't like that playoffs have become the only thing that matters, but that's not going to change. So, I would consider alternatives to the current structure.

They would have been better than Cabrera plus that multi-position flavor of the year.

Yes, it can be a very different team by September. However, one thing that used to make baseball special is that generally only teams that were great all season made the playoffs. A team had to come to play for 162 games or it would miss the playoffs. I know there are some exceptions, but that was the case moreso than today. It's stupid to have a 162-game season if all anybody cares about is the playoffs. If you want to have a playoff of the best teams at the current time, then have a shorter season where players don't beat themselves up by the time the post-season tournament comes around. Or have a split season with two playoffs.

Should of kept Castellanos.

Within 7 games is randomness. Not 20 games.

I think the point is that it should be hard for an 85 win team to beat a 105-win team. Otherwise, why play 162 games? Big upsets are fun if they are unusual like in baseketball. If they happen all the time, then it makes the whole process look random.

That was back when they had no playoffs, so it was logical that you couldn't sell even an eighth place team. Now, an eighth place team is most likely in the race late in the season. To your point, a colleague who knows nothing about baseball did notice that the Red Sox were in last and the Tigers were in second. I was able to explain to him in seconds why the Tigers were in no better position than the Red Sox at the time. Of course, he's very good a math and logic, so that may have been the reason.

I hope they keep the leagues based on tradition and history. By 8-teams, I meant 8-teams in each league (since I assume they are headed in that direction). Have two big leagues with no divisions. I would think that would be easier for fans since they wouldn't have to look at two sets of standings to know where their team stands.

I don't understand that. Are fans really that dumb that they think an 88-win team 5th place team is less appealing than a 78 win second place team? It would be a lot simpler with no divisions. Just take the top 8 teams (since I are know they are going to 8 teams in each league). If your team can't contend with that many teams getting in, then sell it

He has 13 years and 2511 innings as a Tigers and 6 years and 720 innings as an Astro. I don't think number of championships has a lot to do with choosing a Hall of Fame team, so I think he's do in as a Tiger. I don't really care though. The HoF is an individual honor, not a team honor.

Are you guessing or assuming?