chasfh

I've already been predicting that Vance will be the nominee in 2028, and that if Trump loses and Project 2025 goes down with him, the whole thing will be resurrected as Project 2029 under Vance. One way or another, America will go full-on fascist. If not this year, then in four years; if not this year or four years, then eight years. It may take a couple of cycles, but it will happen. All the fascist regimes of the 20th century started out as democracies. It is fate borne of hubris.

So, just for kicks, I married the 1st Round draft info on Reference with the Lahman People database to determine, of all the first round draft picks from 2010 through 2022, how many had made the majors through 2023, and how many seasons did it take? Again, this is everyone drafted in the first rounds only. Here's how it looks: Kids Drafted 566 Played MLB 355 Percent 62.7% Debut Lag Number Percent Rookie? 0 3 0.8% 2024 1 22 6.2% 2025 2 47 13.2% 2026 3 115 32.4% 2027 4 71 20.0% 2028 5 62 17.5% 2029 6 17 4.8% 2030 7 9 2.5% 2031 8 3 0.8% 2032 9 2 0.6% 2033 10 3 0.8% 2034 11 1 0.3% 2035 Average: 3.67 seasons Here's how to read this: There were 566 kids drafted in the first round between 2010 and 2022, including supplemental first rounds. Of those, 355 have debuted in the majors, which is almost 63%. Debut lag is how many seasons it took before they made the majors. Three players made the majors with "zero debut lag"—that is, the very year they were drafted (Garrett Crochet, Chris Sale, Brandon Finnegan). That's 0.8% of all players chosen. A player drafted this year with zero draft lag would debut this season, 2024. Twenty-two players made the majors with a one-year debut lag. That's 6.2% of all players chosen. A player drafted this year with zero draft lag would debut next season, 2025. You get the idea. The most common debut lag is three years (2027) with 32.4%; second most common is four years (2028) at exactly 20.0%; third most common is five years (2029) at 17.5%. So, nearly 70% of first-rounders who make the majors do so at three to five years after they were drafted. Another 13.2% make it in two years. The implication for our first rounder Bryce Rainer, such as it is, is that if he makes the majors, he's most likely to make his debut between 2027 and 2029, and if he is more exceptional, he could make it in 2026. How fast Bryce Rainer makes the majors could set a good benchmark for how solid the developmental team in the Harris administration is. Or Max Clark or Kevin McGonigle, for what that's worth. If they could make it in two, that is an outstanding job. If it takes at least five, well ... tl;dr: I think we both may be right, in that Rainer should make the majors certainly by 2029, hopefully by 2028; and 2030 is probably when we can hope/expect him to start contributing as a solid first-division regular.

I'm not sure it's as easy as all that. Do umpires even see the framing in the moment? Are they positive they can tell the difference between a catcher "illegally" framing versus just the catcher trying to get a better grip on a tricky moving pitch? Could the umpire potentially call an illegal framing on a pitch the catcher doesn't actually move, or moves within the allowable distance from the catch, whatever that might be? How can they be sure the catcher illegally framed a pitch unless technology helps confirm that—ironically, the same technology some pundits are assuming will do away with framing altogether? Seems like there may be a lot of worms in the can.

Yes, I think it's reasonable to plan to the assumption that it will take until age 24 for any or all of these kids to contribute at a playoff-worthy level. Flexibility for unexpectedly good results could push that timetable forward, of course, but even so, I would regard anything sooner that that as gravy.

Some of it look just so ridiculously obvious that I'm surprised some umpires don't punish the catcher by calling a ball just for trying to make him look stupid.

No, but I saw the story about the guy who took a hooker with him to a Dodgers game so he could drive in the HOV lane on the way there.

You misspelled "angar".

I agree with this for the most part. There are times when it is appropriate to trade prospects for established players who can put you over the top and/or take you into November. This is not one of those times.

So, are we still firing hitting coaches during the break?

He's not, but framing is technically a tactic of deception, and some people can be deceived despite their best efforts to avoid it. Also, people frequently make judgments based on factors beyond merely the evidence in front of them, some of those factors are personal, and sadly, that include calling balls and strikes.

It'll take some time, though ... 😏

They are probably presenting their final offers right now.

The federal courts, like too much of government itself, has become just another career grift.

Especially because the top three picks were all high schoolers, so we are definitely drafting for 2030 this year, so we probably won’t know anything for sure until then. It’s virtually impossible to predict who’s going be a player and who’s not based on their raw skills.

In other news, congratulations to new poster @Shelton for achieving the rank of Apprentice. The kid’s got talent and I see big things for him here … 😉

I have too many stories about stupid moves and big losses, so many that if I started recounting them here, I might have to go into therapy to cope.

They’ll pay more for insurance, true, but when he’s right, he’s fire. And I think there are a few teams out there who like their luck.

I agree that was Plan A for Flaherty, and I also agree that we set the price high and don’t move much, if at all, off it, because we have options. I think extending him is a bit of a long shot, because he will want at least 4/80, and he should get at least that from someone, and I don’t see us being the team that gives that to him, not after a single revival season.

Sure it is, but it is a good test for one of the youngest, greenest, rawest teams in the game today.

Also, let’s pretend that we come out of the break and go 7-4 or better by the morning of July 30. That might be unlikely since we have three at TOR, four at CLE, and then home for MINx3 and CLEx1. That would make us 54-54 at minimum. Do we become buyers? I predict we don’t. I believe the idea was always that we would use this season to evaluate what we have in-house from Avila that we can go long with, and if we happen to contend, that would be a happy upside outcome that will be good experience for future seasons for the guys who do stay. I think the bigger, tougher question at that point would be, would we still sell Flaherty et al? I think we probably would not unless we were to get a Mayo+ or Salas+ type package, which I think is super unlikely. Trading our top chip at the deadline while we are in such an upsurge would be really demoralizing to the guys, and I don’t think Harris would do that; plus if we keep Flaherty, it would not be a dead loss because we would go the QO route with him this winter.

I am starting to come around to the idea that, assuming we don’t trade for a catcher, Jake stays, Carson goes, and we take a flyer on Dingler for next year. I think Carson is going to want too many guaranteed years to re-sign him and our core is not yet built up enough to do that. Recent 10-4 run notwithstanding, I believe we still have too many holes left to fill before we do the kind of patch-up work that signing a 31-year old catcher to a 3-year or a 2+1 would be.

Absolutely right. When Christians impose their worldview on politics, they become worldly.

If Evangelicals don’t represent you, then please try not to take offense at criticisms of them, even if they’re referred to by the blanket term “Christians.” It’s almost always the Evangelicals being referred to, which you can probably deduce from context clues.

You know what he is implying, don't you? It is that if any of us complain in any way about the implementation of Project 2025, including with only words, or who knows, maybe even an eyeroll, they may just have to spill our blood. So you'd better allow it. Or else.