Jump to content

chasfh

Members
  • Posts

    11,562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    82

Posts posted by chasfh

  1. 1 minute ago, Sports_Freak said:

    Player (and agent) greed really turns me off. Offer him a fair contract to make him and his family rich for life and if he turns it down, let him walk. We have a few good SP coming up soon.

    Yeah, greed sucks.

    Any thoughts on owner greed?

    • Haha 1
  2. 3 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

    We're gonna trade him.   We'll trade Riley and Olson too.   We're gonna be the new Rays.     Better hope they draft very well.  

    The difference between us and the Rays is that we have an owner who has proved that he will spend if he believes we’re on the cusp of winning (Baez, Eduardo), so In would give him the benefit of the doubt that he’ll do so again, until he proves in the moment of truth that he’s changed and he won’t. We may never become the Mets or Dodgers, but we won’t become the Rays or Pirates, either.

  3. Would I throw years at Skubal to keep him around into the next decade? Hmmm … Throwing years at pitchers almost never ends well. As it turns out, with Boras at the helm, it’s a near certainty we don’t get a chance to extend him before he goes on the market anyway.

    • Like 1
  4. 20 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

    Yes. Which is why you have to play him through 2025. The upside potential is worth waiting for. Even as a DH. 

    I think Tork or anyone would become the Tigers permanent DH only when we basically fill every other position with average or better major leaguers, like the Dodgers and Braves and Phillies and Yankees have. And even then I’m not sure we’re going to want to pay him Boras money to stick around and do that.

    Although I have wondered whether getting Tork off the field altogether would be the magic bullet to finally turn him into the elite hitter everyone has thought he’s always had the potential to become.

  5. 15 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

    I wasn't referring to anyone in particular.  I just think, in general, this forum is very supportive of Democrats.  

    I was the only one who gave what could be fairly characterized as a defense of Crockett, although I thought I positioned it more as a general defense of someone in her position, and I certainly didn’t mention anything about her party.

  6. 6 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

    AOC was appropriate in her comments.  People here are defending Crocket because she is a Democrat, but her comments were cheap and crude.  I mean it it was humorous, but I'm not going to defend it as appropriate.  

    You must be talking about someone else, because I know you’re not talking about me.

  7. Usually I just assume that people who promote horrible reactionaries are merely cynical partisan hacks, but every once in a while I have to wonder whether they are just aggressively ignorant or even stupid. Otherwise, how can they not see what’s so blindingly obvious?

     

  8. Crockett did hide it in a more sophisticated hypothetical, but even without that it was an acceptable level of raising the stakes, and Greene did open the door to the whole thing by being indecorous in the first place. I don’t know if they’re smart enough or deep enough to strategize aforethought, like, “I’ll just mention a minor thing, they’ll go over the line in their response, and then they’ll get blamed for the whole thing”, but that did appear to be the goal here, and it did work for their side.

    I’m as close to 100% certain as I can be that had Greene not called out the physical appearance of Crockett, Crockett would not have called out Greene’s appearance at all. In this new age of playground insults in politics, I don’t blame Crockett at all for not just grinning and bearing it. I say, good for her.

  9. 3 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

    The main thing that scares me about tonight is that there hasn't been a ton of home run power.... it reminds me a little bit of the Miggy 3000 game in that regard from a couple of years ago. (although they have at least had more extra base hits tonight)

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/DET/DET202204231.shtml

    There are exactly two guys out of the 14 playing that game who are on tonight’s roster.

  10. 23 minutes ago, gkelly said:

    I never said it was a controversial pick.  All I said is that picking a 1st baseman #1 overall seemed kind of silly to ME since it is probably the easiest position to find a quality hitter at.

    You never said it was a controversial pick. The 2020 draft was a special case since a first baseman was the consensus #1 pick who would have been selected by every team who didn't have someone already blocking him.

     

×
×
  • Create New...