chasfh

Minor leaguers don't return prospects in trade. They return lottery tickets.

Urshela will return almost nothing in any trade he headlines. Not only is Kelly not on the list, but catcher shows up on the list only at #24 and #25, the Rockies catchers. Maybe catchers don't generally draw a lot of attention at the deadlines because good teams might already tend to have their catcher situations figured out. You know which contender is surprisingly soft at catcher? The Orioles. Adley Rutschmann Is still on track for a 5 or 6 win season, but he's hitting only .235/.305/.365 at catcher, albeit with plus D, while he's raking .364/.412/.612 at DH. I don't know whether this means they will make any moves, but I did find this to be surprising.

Yes, and an organization that's super deep in prospects is simply going to have to pay more than an organization with average depth would.

Chafin is way down the list and Skubal is a courtesy mention at #50 of 50. Chafin could sweeten a deal that Flaherty headlines. Remember that Greg Pappas guy who popped in here and said he’d offer that underwhelming Mayo+ package for Skubal? Mayo+ might be what it takes for them to get Flaherty, assuming they want to win a ring this year versus continuing to count the unhatched chickens while dreaming about the late 2020’s.

Catcher is one of the more interesting decisions we will have to make this winter. First of all, I think it’s unlikely that Carson Kelly will accept only one year. He already got two years from us coming into 2023, so with a season like he’s had, he will stand pat on years at the very least. Guys value the security of knowing they’ll have a job, so years (and total dollars) are more important than AAV. As a result, I’m less concerned about what the salary will be than what the guaranteed years will be. Kelly might take two guaranteed with a team option for a third or more, and he shouldn’t have any trouble getting it. Is he the guy Harris will want to start for us in 2026 when he’s age 31-32? That seems doubtful. On the other hand, Jake Rogers: I realize I’d said hard no on an extension for him, and I still believe that. There’s no reason to pull that particular trigger on a catcher without a stick who’s 29 and under control until 2027. But I am very intrigued by the difference between how Reference values him versus how FanGraphs values him. Last year Reference said Jake was an 0.7 WAR catcher with slightly above average defense, but Fangraphs thought he was a 2.5 WAR player with amazing catcher skills. And even this year, Reference has Jake at 0.1 and Fangraphs has him at 0.9. Savant agrees with the idea that Jake has elite catcher skills. I’ve long preferred FG over Ref when it comes to wins, so I’m coming around to the glove-first value of Jake. The complicating factor is that hitting is a big need for this team going forward, and I’m not sure we can afford to punt on catcher hitting to the tune of 75 or so wRC+. But, important flip side, catcher skills are super important for helping pitchers achieve their results as well. Ultimately, I do think we’re going to arb rather than extension with Jake for sure, and we may try to get Carson to accept another 1+1 contract for more money, which I think will be a stretch, so maybe we bite the bullet on a guaranteed two. But really, that second one is rather dependent on Dillon Dingler, isn’t it? Because if his stick keeps up, we may take a flyer on some combination of Jake and Dingler next year. Fascinating.

The down side is just how long it’s taking. Especially Manning, who’s been here since age 18 in 2016. That’s eight years ago, he’s now 26, and I think we are past the point we can blame the COVID season, and he hasn’t thrown 90 innings at any level since 2021. We have to start wondering whether this is his peak, or even past it.

Tigers were 7-3 coming into today's game. How have they been doing it? Hint: it's not the pitching.

Ohhhhh boy …

Do you have access to SiriusXM? If you do, go to channel 849 on the phone app and listen to the game there. It's a marginally enough better experience that you will notice.

Are you sure that’s not the radio station running all those ads? I tried to watch the TV postgame show after one of the games last week. After last pitch they went to commercial for three minutes. Then they came back with a tease for 20 seconds or so, then another three minutes of commercials. Then it was 30 seconds of tease, then yet another three minutes of commercials. I bailed.

I was just wondering when was the last time we faced a position player pitching? Maybe Jake Bauers when we crushed the Brewers? Now it's Garbage Time with Shelby Miller.

Who are you people and what have you done with the Detroit Tigers?

An Avila is actually helping us win. That's a refreshing change.

Why did I think he’d already been named? It’s official now.

He’s wearing a big D cap. Totally not a fan.

Since when do teams play like us against us?

I think the Tigers want to have a clearer vision of when they expect to contend before they get the clock ticking on the kid. That’s probably going to be next year.

Oh, is that what he meant? 😏

Not only did Trump suggest Kamala should be Bagger Vance, but also, to me, that's not even the best part: "... if we play Augusta, we'll have to make sure she can be there." Meaning, Trump still thinks Augusta doesn't even allow colored caddies? And he has to make a phone call to convince them to do so?

This is why they are both gameplanning for a Kamala run, and suing to try to prevent it.

I somewhat think of Manning as being like Tork: he has a set of skills that got him to the big leagues, and he kind of resents someone new coming in and trying to turn it all upside down. I don't know this for a fact—it's just an impression I have. Anyway, so this part here: Coaches are not allowed to talk to the media? Did Hinch or someone else actually say that? I think I'd be a little surprised if he came right out and did so.

Counterpoint: that didn't work for Lamarr Hoyt, and the Rockies didn't even want to try it with Denny Neagle.

The whole thing is based on the idea that fetuses and embryos are actually fully people like you and me, even though fetuses and embryos are not counted in the census, there's no funeral after a miscarriage, and people say "we have two children and one on the way" instead of saying "we have three children." Now, why they consider fetuses and embryos to be fully people depends on the axe they have to grind. If you're a rank and file voter, you believe god can read every thought even before it's thought, so if at any time you even contemplate that fetuses and embryos might not be people, god will get you for that. God never forgets anything you ever did or thought, so you better stay on the right side of everything all the time and never slip even once, because otherwise Jesus will question whether you are truly saved and you may still end up going to hell hell hell. If you're a legislator in certain states or districts, you're basically trolling for votes from rank and file voter. There is some intersect between the two.

The unfortunate thing about how that amendment is worded is that the cristofascists can fairly argue that the intention of it is very narrow and prevents only the creation of an official national religion—meaning Congress can't create The Church of the United States—but that it does not prevent the government from explicitly implementing Christian biblical law in practice in any other way, including in non-law form (e.g., a regulation is not a law). Personally, I had always thought it was interpreted as meaning Congress cannot make any law that privileges religion over secularism, but I do think the Almighty Supreme Court is going to turn that one on its head in a very explicit manner sooner or later.