4hzglory

I agree with you chas - which is why to me it would make more sense to make a postive base line adjustment for postitions like SS rather than negative base line adjustments to positions.

While that's true, it's still something that out of all of the hitters (who have the same advantage), we have had the last 2 MVP's who were not old for for the league. And it's also nice Anderson did so well this year.

Yeah, it was a confusing response. Briceno had a really good year off of his fall league performance.

I get what you're saying, and it clearly happens in other sports, but there have been no deals to speak of (if any FA deals) and free agency has been opened for over a week. I do think baseball is different in that sense. Now, without a doubt, I think Boras has an idea of what certain teams have told him they would offer a hypothetical 2 time cy young pitcher if he came to market.

I think there may be more willing to sign long term deals than there are those willing to offer them. Especially if those long term deals are structured with large signing bonuses for the marque FA's/extensions to provide protection to the player during a lockout - could have defferred $ to protect the team - much like the Dodgers have done with their contracts.

Also, you would think a fair amount has changed in positional value over the past 10 years. Teams seem to be much better at defensive positioning, even post shift, which has allowed lesser fielders to perform better. I would think that would reduce some of the extra value certain positions truly should get.

How soon until Painter does

I know the result would be the same, but yes, I do think that way makes more sense to me. Instead of penalizing a position for offering less value, you are rewarding a position for providing more value.

Everyone is missing the main part of this transaction, we claimed Dugan Darnell https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/darnedu01.shtml?utm_medium=linker&utm_source=www.mlbtraderumors.com&utm_campaign=2025-11-12_br

I agree that Goff is, but I also think Stafford would be as they are fairly equal in pre-snap intelligence, and his toughness is/was perfect for Detroit. Both completely healthy it's a toss-up IMO. At this point in their careers, I definitely am glad to have Goff.

It basically says the Granderson trade made sense at the time based on where the team was at. And it says the Scherzer non trade, even though we knew he wasn't going to resign, made sense based on where the team was at. IMO, it is confirming what you and those of us who think it would be foolish to trade Skubal now believe with the team coming off 2 post season appearances and being favorites to make it to the postseason again. Also, an article in the Athletic from the GM meetings also implies that Tiger Brass is saying they want to win with Skubal.

Ha Ha, but in reality, it isn't less chasing that has been his issue, it's too much taking of borderline pitches. Like many have said, I think he will be the one on our team helped most by the challenge system.

He was fairly decent against Lh all through the minors and still hits for power against them. I do think it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as I trusted him against LH more than Greene the last few months.

And is k pct is really low.

McKinstry won also for Utility

If they were even truly available, Holmes clearly felt they weren't upgrades over what they already have or in Zitler's case, wasn't a fit as he only plays RG and they aren't going to move Ratledge this year.

He was used as an example of a starting tackle who was traded in recent years. And yes he was a starter, but as MB said, he isn't an upgrade over Skipper. And they clearly think who they already have as backups and on the PS are equal or better than the options that were out there. Both on the OLine and DLine. And after the Tampa game, they clearly felt like that with the DB's. I believe if they saw a clear upgrade over what they had, they would have made a trade. But if they're just trading a 6th round pick to get a player equal or worse in their minds than the backups they have, why would they do that? They got their starting guard (who just got hurt) in the 6th (not to mention a guard they really like in Frazier who Holmes said he would have taken in the 3rd if they didn't trade up to get Teslaa.)

I agree. I’d sign Bichette long term and worry about any logjam later. Torres I love for a year, but more than that would be iffy.

It’s usually the players like Torres who see their offers diminished the most by a QO. It obviously isn’t going to affect Tucker/Bregman/Bichette

It doesn’t come directly from them, but they lose a pick. Depending on what their luxury tax status/revenue sharing status is, determines which round of a pick(and if they lose 2)they lose and if they also lose International signing bonus money. Depending on what he would sign for, we get either a pick after the 1st round (if his total deal is over $50 mil) or after the 2nd round(if it’s under $50 mil)

With the QO attached, it could be an issue for him. With no QO, I think he definitely gets at least 3 yes 45-50 mil. It will be interesting to see what he does.

Which is basically what Stewart has been this year. (SSS alert)

By comparison, of the regulars, that is only below Robinson who is 40.4%. 3rd is Green at 35%

Small sample size, (but not as small as 2 possessions in 1 game) but Stewart is shooting 39.3% so far on 3.5 3 point shots/game. It seems based on that he should keep shooting.

I think besides the YouTube issue, it was also who ND played and the expected quality of the game. As you say, when ND played Miami and A&M they both were top 20 watched games of the first half.