Tiger337

My concern is not parity, but rather too many teams in the playoffs! I think expanded playoffs ruin the entire essence of a baseball season which I view as a marathon. I am not overly concerned with parity. I like that there are good teams and bad teams. I like dynasties and like when dynasty teams get defeated. If every team has the same chance, it makes the season seem random. I know others don't necessarily share that view.

I would agree that Haases is probably not a regular catcher on a first division team. I see him more as a John Wockenfuss.

There could be tiers of leagues all under the MLB umbrella. The relgated teams go to the bottom tier, maybe 8 teams which will play each other most often. They still can share in the revenue. The only punishment is they wouldn't participate in the playoffs, but they weren't going to make it anyway.

Yes, it's no risk with possibly small reward. I like it.

I think some are assuming that relegation would have to be done the same way here as it is done internationally. n.

I don't think it's irrelevant. I see relegation as an alternative to expanded playoffs. Many feel thatrelegation is a terrible idea. I feel the same way about expanded playoffs. I realize relegation will never happen and is just a theoretical argument. It's like talking about deadening the ball. It will never happen, but I feel like it would solve problems with the game which I think exist.

Wow, all of the sudden Correa is a Met and will play along side Lindor. It happened over night. I don't think we've ever seen that happen so fast before where a deal falls through due to a physical and another team swoops in immediately.

I'd rather see the players make the money than have it all go to the owners. Everything that is done to structure pro sports leagues is done to help owners make profits. It has nothing to do with competitiveness or fairness. In the end, they just put everyone in the playoffs and everbody is happy.

It sounds like NCAA football. It sounds like a problem which is caused by something other than relegation.

Trump's ethics lawyer! LOL

I would love to see relegation in American professional sports, but I know there is no chance of that ever happening. The solution will be add more and more teams to the playoffs.

I use Twitter frequently and I have always been able to see all kinds of extremist right wing rhetoric None of their ideas were banned.

I dont think they are over pays. One year contracts are generally not a problem, so the deals for Boyd and Lorenzon are OK. I don't really believe the stories that the Tigers saw something in them that other teams didn't see though. They are both pitchers capable are getting hot for a half season and making themselves marketable at the deadline.

With some exceptions, pitchers tend to be more present than future. I don't think there is anything these two pitchers could do in the first half which would convince me they are the future. As you said, they coluld be valuable trade chips.

"Strongly" may be a strong word here.

How is acquiring Boyd and Lorenzon a slow off-season? That's 40% of their rotatioln and two pitchers that are ready to break out into all-star seasons.

So, infielders can not shift like they used to shift, but outfielders can. Interesting concept.

I am saying hypothetically that if Harris really wanted him on the team, but failed to do so over 2 million, that would not be a good thing for fans. I just don't think he was high enough on Candelarioto take a risk.

That is my guess as well. It would be concerned if he wanted to keep him, but decided against it because of 2 million, but I don't believe that's the case.

That is true from Harris' perspective, but fans don't know the Tigers budget. If they start offering higher salaries, that could be an indication that their budget is higher than some think and they aren't worried about the $2 million difference. A more negative perspective would be we don't know if the Tigers are going spend that $7 million on somebody else or if they are just going to pocket the savings.

I don't think anyone is suggesting he be DFAed. People have said to try to trade him. If no one offers enough, then keep him.

Even if he does have a knack for getting saves around his walks, what good is a closer if there are never any leads? I say shop all relievers!

I do too! Fetter looks like a miracle worker so far, but I have always been skeptical of how much a coach can do in the long run

That was before Fetter. They seem to be better at getting good production out of relievers now. Regardless, I don't think there is a compelling reason for bad teams to hold onto relievers if they can get something for them. If they can get something for Lange, they should move him too, although I don't think he's as valuable as others seem to think. He's had one good year.

All Relievers are replaceable on a 100-loss team. Sure, keep him if nobody offers anything of value, but they should certainly be listening to offers. It's not like Soto is great. He just has somehow gotten him self labeled as "proven closer".