chasfh

I'm not sure they can simply terminate the contract only because he doesn't show up work, because if they can do so for that reason, they can do it for a player they have on a bad contract who has VISA trouble in the spring, and I don't think they want to get into litigating intent. I think it's most likely they'll go the suspension route, which is technically a temporary solution that could turn into a de facto permanent solution, and it would not run afoul of any clauses protecting players that were bargained for during the CBA.

Here's a lemonade possibility for you: maybe his poor numbers are evidence that he is working on things he hasn't mastered yet? Honestly, though, I don't have any insight into it either way, because I haven't been following him all that closely.

I don't even see them as buyers in that case, because I can't imagine them selling off the top of their prospect list for an impact major league (I assume) bat, and really, don't they need more than one, anyway? What are multiple bats going to cost? I can't imagine that having a ghost of a chance at the third wild card spot would be worth it to them to go completely off plan.

Rogers definitely did have his glove fully on the ball, but I think maybe the scorer saw how he was set up for the pitch beyond the outside edge of the strike zone but Faedo missed by a mile throwing way in and down, catching Rogers off-guard, so he figured Faedo was wild on the throw because he missed the target by so much.

Good luck uniting them.

See, now that's how the reporter could have checkmated Nancy. Nancy: He needs to make his decision soon. Reporter: He already has. He's running. Do you support him? Nancy: ...

Rogers is a hard no. Mize is maybe 50/50 at best. Skubal is a hard one. You could make the case that you don't want to be on the hook for six or eight years and his elbow blows up halfway through. Guys with his profile don't have good track records.

I might postulate that what he says to the media about how he manages ain't necessarily what goes on behind the scenes.

I'm pretty confident Hinch was managing the pens' workload so he can effectively gameplan for the rest of the week's games. For some reason, probably related to rest planning or minor owies, it was going to be better for the bullpen if Faedo could have closed out the game. But he couldn't, and at least Hinch didn't leave him in there to lose it.

Turns out Faedo and Foley were the only two fresh relievers coming into the game. Maybe Fetter saw something before the game that made him think Faedo was going to be sharper than Foley. Who knows. I'm at least 93% confident that A.J. Hinch wasn't trying to lose the game.

Holy ****, what a finish. Talk about snatching victory from the jaws of attempted defeat.

That's a head-scratcher, all right. I wonder what Foley thought of that idea. Speaking of whom, he needs two strikeouts right now.

Maybe he is worth more. I just saw he will be the youngest catcher in the free agent class. Maybe someone will throw 3/45 or 4/60 at the guy. I just doubt it's going to be the Tigers.

Great question! Can you give us the full depth of the answer?

She's a 10pm 6 and a 2am 9.

Fun fact I just learned: Wander Franco is not suspended while all this is going on, but rather, he was placed on administrative leave by MLB, which separates him from his team but he is still being paid on his 11/182 contract, and he's still accruing service time. MLB could suspend Franco if the league determines he engaged in a prohibited act, including the types of crimes he allegedly committed. They don't have to wait for a conviction or plea deal to do so. But for MLB to suspend him, they would have to determine not that he broke a law, which is outside the scope of their jurisdiction, but instead whether he violated employment obligations established by collectively-bargained workplace policy. Even so, Franco would have the right to appeal any suspension and could contend that MLB lacks just cause to suspend him, based on available evidence. But wait: couldn't the Rays simply void Franco’s contract? After all, hasn't he been accused of one of the most heinous crimes imaginable? And isn't MLB in the vanguard of hammering players for allegations of sexual violence, even if they were never even tried or convicted? (Hello, Trevor Bauer!) The Rays could try, but the complicating factor is that Franco is accused of the crime, and not yet convicted. But even if the Rays wait for a conviction or plea deal to do so, historically, MLB teams have struggled to terminate player contracts, since they are guaranteed, even when a player is incarcerated. The Padres tried to terminate Lamarr Hoyt's contract when he was jailed for drugs back in the 80's, but an arbitrator reinstated the contract because he found the team had not followed all the prevailing procedures at the time. One possibility is that the Rays could negotiate a buyout with Franco, the way the Rockies did with Denny Neagle when he was found guilty of soliciting a prostitute. What makes Franco's situation different is since he is being held outside the country, the Rays could try to suspend Franco due to his inability to come to the United States to fulfill the terms of his contract, during which they would not have to pay him. Could they keep him suspended for the rest of his contract length as a way to de facto terminate all remaining payment obligations? Maybe. I'm sure that would have to be subjected to a judgment somehow. I wouldn't say that part is a really sweet deal for Franco, considering his overall circumstances, but assuming the Rays have made good on payments to him so far, he shouldn't have to worry about scaring up the cash to get the best legal representation possible.

"Commercial exploitation of a minor"? Isn't that what Craig Monroe is potentially facing?

I decided, hey, way not tune in some minor league baseball this afternoon, since the Hens, 'Wolves, and 'Caps all have day games. All all three are getting crushed by blowout scores. F-Tigers on tonight.

If by price you mean AAV, that shouldn't be a huge problem. I would guess less than 10, maybe 8. But I'd be concerned about giving him two guaranteed years, and if his demand is three-plus years, we definitely should pass. Because when it comes to a commodity like he, years are a bigger risk than AAV.

This is a good point. Kelly was considered a big talent when he was drafted, so I think there’s a decent chance he’s unlocked something here. But there’s also a chance it’s some sort of outlier, and we’d have to decide whether to give him years before we find that out. That would be a risk, even at two years.

Kelly’s going to want years. Are we willing to give him years?

Listen to parking management, and be prepared to sue the tar out of them if they give you a bum steer. I think Joumana Lawyer takes on those kinds of cases.

I do know that the quality of rock and roll has been both helped and hurt (e.g., pretentious prog rock) by the rose in music education, but I wonder whether and how it’s affected hip hop? I would imagine the same direction to some degree.

“By the way, food and rent aren't the only things around here that cost money. You sleep on the couch.“

Apropos of nothing, I continue to maintain that Trading Places is the best Christmas movie of the last 50 years.