mtutiger

I saw that earlier, he would be a great fit here imo

Just to add to this, putting resources on a position player also takes their position off the board. In Jeimer's case, tendering him likely means you aren't in the market to acquire another (possibly longer term) 3B option in this offseason. We have spent a lot of time on the risk side of the coin, the idea that non-tendering Jeimer risks leaving the position to someone worse for 2023. But what happens, hypothetically, if the Tigers manage to swing a trade or acquire someone who ends up being a longer term option at the position? In that case, that's likely something that doesn't happen if you tender Jeimer. *That's* calculated risk... tendering Jeimer is the safe move, and is even defensible to a degree. But the downside is that, assuming he was always just a placeholder, is that you pull yourself out of consideration for trying to improve for the longer term at the position in this offseason.

The lack of consistency no doubt has an impact on his value... Reminds me of Jonathan Schoop to an extent, who has more or less ping ponged around the league since leaving Baltimore. Presumably because he's streaky and isn't consistent at the plate

100%. I understand that we are all fans and it isn't our money so, why should we care? But just thinking realistically, teams aren't generally in the business of paying significantly over market value on players. I see the other side of the argument as well and it has merit, but ultimately it's just hard to be upset at the Tigers on this one for doing what a lot of other teams likely would have done in this situation from a business sense.

49/50 Democrats voted for the measure. 6/50 Rs voted for the measure. Not sure the math adds up, Chief.

She and her compadres also have a lot of political relevance at this particular moment with such a small majority and Kevin cutting backroom deals for their support. There's a fine line between giving too much and too little attention, but let's not pretend she (and statements she makes) aren't newsworthy either

This. Likely the only way he was staying was by giving him the $7 million, regardless of whether he was worth that or not. And the decision to negotiate, while likely the right one in the business sense (ie. Candy wasn't worth $7 mil even in this market) meant the Tigers had to be comfortable walking away from the table. They made a decision, one that I can't really fault them for. And they have to see how it shakes out at this point.

Chas suggested that his market price (and what he signed for with Washington) was based on a perception that he was damaged goods or more of a project player. It's clear that the Tigers viewed him similarly.

Maybe the Tigers also perceive Jeimer as damaged goods and value him accordingly as well?

Don't know how exactly the ratio works out, but the contract that Candy agreed to with the Nationals suggests that the market doesn't think much more of Candy's value than the Tigers do imo

My understanding is that they offered him a contract at a lower number and he refused. I know why the Tigers did it, I think most other teams would have done the same thing in that situation as well, all things equal. And you have to be willing to walk away in a negotiation, which they did. Wish Candy the best, but there was nothing wrong in trying to pay him fair market value and being willing to walk away.

Yep. It is a quintessential Scott Harris Giants era signing. It has as much or more to do with his own judgment as it does Matty being a retread IMO. It's hard to compartmentalize that as fans, I get it, but it fits the pattern. Whether it works or not is another matter.

I though Macron's comments were even more notable, echoing what Biden said, given that he's been the one western leader who has been more open to diplomacy with Russia.

Players market baby

Al signed Zimmermann long term... this is far different

His big mistake was targeting a former Tiger who we've already developed preconceived notions about. If it was a different project type pitcher, he'd be getting more leeway

Notably aside from reuniting with the Tigers, this is also the second time that a team employing Scott Harris has signed Boyd. May be a coincidence, but may suggest that an inclination toward his skill set.

Honestly would have preferred somebody without his injury track record, but it's fine.... starting pitching market looks like it's gonna be nuts this year lol

No doubt - a situation like tendering Candy (and, as we now know, giving him more than what the market believes he is worth) is absolutely what would have happened under the last guy. The new guy doesn't operate that way, which is good. It's one of those 'calculated risks' he talked about in his opening press conference. I don't know how he'll replace Candy, and there's a risk in that whatever replacement happens maybe doesn't perform as well.... but we all know what playing it safe gets. Sometimes you have to take risks to get better.

Maybe Candy wasn't the biggest overall problem, but he was a problem who had a decision to be made contractually during this offseason. And they acted on it. While I see the other side, I am fine with the decision they made. And as free agency proved, at the end of the day, the league didn't feel he was a $7 million dollar player so I cannot blame the Tigers for wanting to move on and see if they can find something different.

I'm sure Atlanta TV stations beg to differ 😄

Mitch would be a great Candelario-to-Nats signing for the Tigers, although I suspect he has interest from actual contenders for more than just 1 year

To be clear, I would prefer he just go out at this point. But there's no point in being bitter because he does have the contract and the new PBO has decided that he is willing to work with whatever constraints that come with carrying Miguel on the roster. As fans, that should be the beginning and end of it IMO.... Having said that, with this being his final season, I really hope he puts in the work over the offseason to try to maximize whatever he can bring to the team next year. It was really painful at times to watch him down the stretch last year and would like to see some magic one last time.

We have a vital role but, unless you are advocating that we just stop supporting Ukraine with arms (which I don't think you're doing, though I know others would be a-OK with), I'm not sure exactly what you think we should be doing differently at the moment. Diplomacy is happening, as has been mentioned a few times in this thread. I don't believe that our government wishes this conflict to be happening. Basically I don't think anyone outside of the Russian government wanted this conflict to happen when it was inaugurated. But in terms of a diplomatic solution to the conflict that is ongoing, it's not going to work unless both of the parties actually involved in the conflict start wanting it to be resolved. The United States can't just will it into existence.

Sounds about right. No way he was getting $7mil on the market.