chasfh

To your point, almost no one worth a darn is taking big money for short deals, so in practical terms, the option you'd rather see is not an option at all. Players are people, and people want as security that's as long-term as they can manage. Yeah, I know, Trevor Bauer. Obviously a freak. And in more ways than one. 😏

lol "10 AT&T executives"

Assuming people search on porn sites for things they see as taboo, I gotta chuckle at the idea of how exotic a librarian is to Montanans, and black people are to Kansans. Although I guess California would be the exception to prove that rule?

This is the summary statement of my last post, right here.

The risk at hand is that Jeimer, who has now established a baseline major league performance level, is pretty likely to be the clear best 3B option for us going into 2024, the year I assume the team is planning to finally contend for a ring. If that’s the case, then our decision at that point will be to give him however many years needed to keep him, for our best chance at the ring that year and beyond, or let him go and hope we have someone at least close who can replace him. This is why I don’t think a guaranteed three-year deal with an additional two team-options contract would be a bad risk. Sure, he could turn into a pumpkin in 2022 or ‘23 and we’d be on the hook for a third year in ‘24, but that would be it. Then we could audition his position for year three even, then be free of him after. But if he turns out for the next three years to be the player he was in 2021 (or even better), then we could gladly pick up the option for 2025, and if that works as well, for 2026, too. I think that’s a better risk than just taking the two arbs as they come, then having to decide whether we want to give him guarantees for through perhaps 2027 specifically because we need him for the push in 2024. I’ve talked myself into it: give Jeimer a 3+2 deal. If we don’t and take our chances on his arb instead, then we should plan on replacing him in 2024 no matter what.

A crucifix? Isn’t that a Catholic thing? Oh, the evangelicals won’t like that …

Cool. Thanks. Because I’d prefer not to re-sign him.

Speak for yourself.

With good folks.

Based on their crawl, this tweet would also be appropriate for Media Meltdowns and media Bias 101.

Why doesn’t Putin just direct them to lie about the population? Is he losing his grip? 😏

If the story is that AJ was against it, ripped TVs off the wall in protest of it, but it went on anyway despite him, how do you square that circle?

Fork yeah, benches!

Since Correa was one of the main public apologists of the incident afterwards so probably a clubhouse ringleader, and therefore one of the players AJ presumably couldn’t control, I have to wonder how that affects Correa’s chances of coming to play here.

How much better do you require a third baseman with a 125 OPS+ over his last 830 plate appearances to hit? Do you really think Jeimer’s defense is so bad that his level of offense can’t cover for it?

I think a three-year deal with two team options would be an acceptable risk, and a motivating factor for Jeimer. The alternatives to plan for, as I see them, are to get two more good years out of Jeimer and let him walk, or get two more good years out of him and pay him 3-4 more years to keep him around. Planning as of today, I don’t love either of those alternatives, necessarily. One might counter that the two years we get out of Jeimer may not be good at all, to which I might reply, why plan on keeping a not-good 3B around for two years, then? After all, we just got a 3.6-win season out of him following a shortened season that projected out to 5 wins. That should allow us to project nine or wins for the next three seasons, shouldn’t it? If that’s the case, it might be worth locking him down for the year we plan on contending, then having him earn the following two years through performance. After all, we just committed to two more years to 30- and 31-year-old Jonathan Schoop, who just had his first two-win season in three years. Why would committing three years to a younger, better player be nuts?

It’s that accent. That sexy-as-**** working-class accent waxing eloquently.

I am now forced to root for the National League, dammit.

Why not, why not, WHY NOT!!!!!! We're going to have Jeimer for two years, his age 28 and 29 season, and given that our horizon to return to serious contention is probably three years, I don't think it would be a terrible idea to lock him up for that third year versus him leaving because we won't accede to his demands for multiple years at age thirty, with our having to start all over at 3B. Because if he's above average in 2022 and 2023, he's not going to come back on a mere one-year contract as a free agent. At that point, the deal to keep him would have to be years and years. I wouldn't want to guarantee anything to Jeimer beyond that right now, but I think a three-year deal with discretionary team options to take him through age 31 or 32 wouldn't be a terrible risk, and at more favorable money than if he were to have any All-Star seasons in the next two years. Despite that we've basically drafted or traded for just about every position player as a third baseman in the past few years, it's not as though we have anyone projected to be as good as he is banging on the door to take his job away anytime soon. All this said, I don't have strong feelings about it. I'd also be fine with letting him play his final two arb years and then taking our chances on the system or the market. But if the Tigers' preference is to boot Jeimer after two years no matter what, then not extending him is probably the right non-move.

That's essentially Tom's point.

Wood was the active pitcher when Longoria hit the home run. Tom's question is about the logic, not the rule. Wood obviously pitched longer and more effectively than Rogers, so by logic, he was more deserving of being assigned the win.

Good question.

New day, same ****.

Down 5-0, the Rays close the deficit to 5-3 with three innings left. This is baseball. Never say die until they’re dead.