Longgone

5 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

Even before the injury, in his rookie season where he played 16 games (only inactive in week one), he was a pretty much total non-factor. Granted that 2021 team was a dumpster fire through and through, but the contributors today who were on that team (Goff, much of the OL, ASB, Alim) mostly all started coming into their own there down the stretch. You saw flashes of where they are today. I've never seen anything with Levi that's made me say, "yeah I see what Holmes saw"

One sack and 15 tackles across 16 games as a rookie 2nd round pick didn't inspire confidence. Zero sacks and 3 tackles across five active games in 2023 says he won't be here next year... Is it possible without the injury we get a serviceable backup? Possibly. But a starter should be the expectation with the #41 overall pick. I'm not prepared to say that Holmes didn't miss on it and excuse it away by citing to the injury. I think he just whiffed. On one day two pick across three drafts, which is pretty dang good.

He played injured his rookie season, eventually leading to the surgery.

3 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

Ehhhh…. I’m ready to call him a bust. It’s debatable how much is injury related,  

It’s not at all debatable, it’s entirely injury related. I get it, he’s a high draft pick who hasn’t produced yet, but he’s coming off major surgery. Like a pitcher coming off TJ, it can take more than a full year to get everything back. He may never, but you can’t evaluate anyone based on injury related performance.

7 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

It doesn't really matter. Nobody is going to beat Baltimore anyway. They're playing on a different level. Maybe next year...

People say things like this all the time, and then they get beat.

6 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

I do want to say that I think it is worth noting that Dallas did have all their timeouts

Dallas had only one timeout remaining.

4 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

THIS... I would be on board with. Or a 2 or 3-year with a player opt out after the 1st year...

I wouldn't give up a draft pick for a short term deal.

17 minutes ago, casimir said:

I would hope Harris could find a GM that would be as in love with Gipson-Long as some of the Tiger fan base seems to be.

He did, Jeff Greenberg.

1 hour ago, Jason_R said:

Even after his dismal night, Purdy still leads the NFL in passer rating (112.2). Goff is #6 (98.3). And Purdy still leads the NFL in QBR (71.7). Goff is #11 (59.6). Kid is really good.

Looking at some numbers, one stood out to me. Goff is #3 in sack percentage (4.9%), behind only Josh Allen (3.8%) and Patrick Mahomes (4.2%). 

It's kind of misleading to rate quarterbacks on what are basically team stats.

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

It does look like they are setting up for lots of IP to come from the bullpen. Still, I think Faedo, Miller and Chafin would be the only guys they can't option, so it's not like the rest of them can't pitch their way off the 26 easily enough.

They can option Faedo, can't option Wentz

39 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I’m pretty sure we signed Miller to do more than throw batting practice.

I like the signing as a good bullpen depth move. Miller added a splitter last season and was crushing hitters with it, although the flip side is that his already high-ish walk rate spiked. Maybe the Whisperer mentioned seeing something he could work with and that why they went for him. Miller’s also going to get a chance to close some games early on since his contract has incentives based on that. It may or may not work, but might as well try him there because who else we gonna put there? Lange or bust?

Most of his control issues came when he was suffering with a herniated disc in his neck, when he came back off the 60 day, he barely walked anyone.

7 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Sport needs a salary cap.  This is ridiculous. 

I am going to laugh, however, when the Dodgers fail to win the World Series again. 

 

Guess this means Kershaw to the Rangers?  

They just need to share broadcast revenues.

4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

The question is where is the overall trade-off sweet spot between giving up a little in recovery optimization and using more relievers, which is definitely moving into sub-optimal territory.

I agree, with starters you can safely assume they've reached muscle failure and need full recovery. With relievers, there are so many more variables.

8 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Is it optimal because they have been conditioned to do that for years or because there is something about the human genetic make-up that makes four days optimal?  

The latter

5 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think part of the reluctance is that for all the science being applied, teams still don't know enough about recovery cycles to know what is safe to do, probably because no-one wants to take the risk and maybe do it wrong, which is probably the only way the data ever eventually emerges. They know the five day cycle, they think they know that if they keep a guy to 20 pitches or so he can go 2 days out of 3 or maybe the occasional 3 out of 4 (though I have my doubt about this given that reliever wastage rates seem to be worse than starters!). But they just don't have any confidence to say "we can bring a guy back after 3 days if he throws 50" or whatever the case may be - or even how he should train on the differing cycles.

They know a great deal about recovery cycles, four days rest is generally optimal, but may vary with some individuals, with peak strength occurring on the fifth day after muscle failure and recovery. Muscle failure is variable. Extra rest is counter productive, as the muscle will begin to lose strength after peak. 

The every fifth day cycle for starting pitchers is based on results, not convention.

7 hours ago, RatkoVarda said:

no doubt. the issue is not blocking prospects, it is that Vierling, McKinstry and Ibanez are decent, but Harris should be able to find one more guy this winter better than decent

Not to be the contrarian, but I like Vierling at third. I think he has more in the tank.

9 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I was listening to the Pride of Detroit Lions podcast today and they brought a good point that is similar to what TP always bitches about. This offense uses 1st down and 2nd down in hopes to make 3rd down more manageable so that it's easier to get the 1st down then. They don't seem to like to be aggressive and go for the 1st down shot on 1st down itself. Things have to be more methodical and conservative to help set up 3rd down. They were expressing their frustration with the lack of creative playcalling on early downs and the inability to stretch thy field with Gibbs, Jaymo, etc. Goff and Ben Johnson seem far more comfortable, to the point of detriment at times, going dink and dunk and making 3rd downs manageable as opposed going for the kill shots and stretching it out on early downs.

This isn't them or anyone saying Goff can't go deep, but a point I think that I agree with and one that lines up with a lot of TPs complaints. 

They have one of the most effective, potent and explosive offenses in the NFL, so there isn't too much to complain about.

16 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

I'm not sure the NFL has more parity or is better. It may be more popular because the season is shorter, condensed to one day, and more conducive to fantasy leagues. They have also mastered the art of publicity. I hesitate to say better; that is in the eye of the beholder, and this beholder couldn't give two ****s about the NFL.

It's better, there are real issues with MLB that neither side seems willing to adequately address.

7 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

It only angers them because they did not think of it first.

I'm sure they did. Most teams wouldn't want to push the cash flow hit into the future.

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

so the hope is that by the time he hangs up his cleats, inflation will have devalued the payments owed enough to where they won't create significant luxury tax  liability or drag on current payroll - or that the whole CBA will have changed enough to make it all moot. If they still owe him $20M/yr in 25yrs, at 2.5% inflation that only costs them ~$11M in today's dollars. OTOH, if most of the money is 20+yrs out, the contract isn't really worth anywhere near $700M in real terms either. Either way, it's risking a lot on a guess about what the Federal Reserve will do far into the future.

Considering that his arm is going into the shop for the second time and he's not been a particularly high average/low K hitter for his career that you'd expect to have a better chance to still be hitting much past 35 it's a bold move for the Dodgers to say the least.

I believe any deferred payments are added to the luxury tax calculation for the period of the contract, but adjusted to present value, it is not postponed to the period beyond the contract.

17 minutes ago, Jason_R said:

No, not every player is injured when they are drafted. And some GMs don’t go out of their way to pick players who are literally rehabilitating from surgery. Holmes traded up to pick rehabbing players Williams and Hooker in two of the first three years of his tenure. I also forgot he picked the rehabbing James Mitchell who has 229 snaps in two seasons. He has a track record. 

Except you’re singling out Holmes, all teams do this. Do you pay any attention to the rate of attrition in college football and the NFL? If you didn't take a chance on previously injured players, you'd be drawing from a very small pool.

5 hours ago, Jason_R said:

Nevertheless it is not zero, which Holmes and the medical team must have known. Also since Moseley is five years older than the oldest age in that database, it would not be unreasonable to assume that his risk for injuring the other ACL was higher than the 5-7% range  

The point is not that Holmes made a mistake in signing Moseley. It is that Holmes does, by now, have a track record of gambling on players with an injury history. Levi will need a miracle to avoid being a bust. Jaymo is in the middle of his second season and is still just getting settled. Moseley obviously didn’t work out. Hooker remains to be seen. There might be an argument to include Josh Paschal in this with the cancer surgeries in college. But even without him, Holmes still has a clear track record of taking chances on injured players.

This is illogical. Football is a violent sport. The majority of players have some type of injury history, or soon will. Every team takes chances on them. People on here were upset the Lions didn't trade for Chase Young, what is he but a walking history of injuries?

19 hours ago, Jason_R said:

Yes. Moseley was a roll of the dice. Holmes rolls the dice a lot on injured players, and the return has generally been bad, though Jaymo is starting to bring the juice we were promised.

But starting the season it would have been hard to imagine the team might only get 200 snaps out of Moseley, CJGJ, and Houston combined. 

Moseley was a fluke, tearing the opposite knee.

40 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

yeah, maybe they see something that doesn't show up in the stats, but the stats themselves don't suggest that he belongs in the majors.  How many of these minor league rule 5 guys ever spend any significant time in the majors?  I don't follow it, but I imagine it's a fairly low percentage.  

Starr can hit the upper 90' but is hittable, Coker low 90's but has more of a mix, both are just org fodder. I'd rather see them grab young guys who may have some development left, but I guess you need some of these guys also.

14 hours ago, casimir said:

What happens at Jim Cowan's house stays at Jim Cowan's house.

I usually wake up in the church parking lot with a pocket full of cocktail weanies and no memories anyway.

28 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

Boo. Maybe sign a real MLB hitter instead? there is always that point in the season where you want to use that spot on a different player, but you cannot send down the Rule 5 guy. That hurts the club and in 2024 it should matter

The Rule 5 draft is the most exciting day in sports.

4 hours ago, holygoat said:

You can't chew yesterday's breakfast.

You can, but you won't want to.