chasfh

What, you don’t remember Democrats snarking that Scalise was shot because he was having a hissy fit spat with his gay lover baseball teammate? 😏

This is very much in the same vein as, when Republicans doing something awful is at the top of the news cycle, their media apologists complain about "both sides", but when it's not in the news cycle, it's 100% all about Democrats.

At the time I posted, which was before reading microline’s replies, it seemed within the realm of possibility that had we called Thompson up, he could have done up to and including as well for us as he did for the Dodgers, and that might have been worth a decent enough return to make a deal with someone. A flyer pitcher and a flyer hitter, maybe. Concluding that he was terrible before this year so there was no possibility he could have been any good to us this year seemed to me a baffling position to dig your heels in on. In the case of Trayce Thompson as explained by microline, all of this is now moot.

This closes the loop for me regarding the Thompson case. He didn't want to play for the Tigers because the Dodgers expressed interest, because really, during the Avila era, who would? Since that appears to eliminate every possibility except (a) do whatever deal you could with the Dodgers or (2) let Thompson's opt out date arrive so he could be sprung and sign with the Dodgers anyway, that reduces the Tigers' leverage to zero. Cash considerations became the best they could get in return. Do I have that straight? Hypothetical: what if the Tigers tried to promote Thompson anyway, for who knows what reason? (It's a hypothetical, so the idea doesn't have to be defended with an actual reason.) Would Thompson have left the org because ain't no way he's stepping foot in the Comerica home team locker room no how? And if he were to accept such a promotion, would the opt out date clause expire and eliminate his ability to jump to the Dodgers at his discretion? I'm interested in the technicals of such a case, basically because I have never heard of this kind of situation before. Two last questions: is there a technical difference between "cash considerations" and "cash"? And if you had to guess, how much in "considerations" do you think the Tigers might have received forThompson?

Of course I agree with that idea, but even though he was another player of a certain type, he was still a different player who was raking in an unusual way and thus at least worth a try. Just slotting him into the lineup for a look-see would not have been the same thing over and over again. EDIT: I replied with this before reading Microline’s input. In this specific case his reply makes total sense, but absent those specifics, in general, letting him go only because he wasn’t great in prior years, without trying him for a possible good flip, makes no sense to me.

Of course, and anyone who saw that Thompson could not have possibly done anything for us because he's a 31 year old OF with a career WAR through that date of 0 and OPS+ of around 95 is equally full of crap. He was definitely worth a try, a literal no risk move since the cost of trying him would have been essentially nothing, with a potential payout of at least some decent depth pieces. It could have been as close to getting something for nothing as anyone could get. I don't understand why you're fighting so hard against that idea.

I think a Trump-Greene ticket would go below 40 nationally. Although they would still win a bunch of confederate states.

Just because black cops kill black suspects doesn't mean that racism isn't a factor. That's what the culture of policing in America has led to.

Trayce Thompson earned a shot to play in Detroit, instead was shipped off to LA where he put up two wins in less than half a season with a .268/.364/.537 line, consistent with how he did in Toledo, and we got nothing out of it. It's comical how some people think that's a big nothing.

So we could have called him up, he could have raked for us, we could have flipped him at the deadline to a contender and gotten a decent return for him, but instead we took "cash considerations" for him and got basically nothing in terms of roster improvement? That almost sounds like professional malpractice on Al Avila's part. Am I missing something here?

I don’t recall this from at the time. So he wouldn’t have played for the Tigers even if we tried to call him up? if true what a weird situation that is.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the deal with Trayce Thompson was. He kicked ass in Toledo and we never did bring him up, and in fact sold him off to the Dodgers for "cash considerations." I don't know, that just smells funny to me.

To the degree that he might have helped his trade value along and we had no other viable candidates for the position, sure. As terrible as he was, Grossman was still the best guy we had to throw out there. Baddoo had gone to the minors, then came back in July and sucked worse than Grossman. Baddoo was broken, and there were literally no other candidates available for that LF slot, so it would have made no sense to sit Grossman if we didn't have someone who was not better at all, so might as well throw him out there and cross our fingers he was going to have a decent enough run to trade him on. I believe that was Hinch's, and Avila's, calculation. If Baddoo 2022 were Baddoo 2021, Grossman might have been DFA'ed before the deadline, and that would have been fine, because he was just terrible. But Baddoo wasn't, and Grossman was the best option at the time, and we were highlighting him for a trade, so yes, I was in total agreement with the approach of playing him to get whatever we could for him. What's your opinion on this? What would you have done, and why?

I wasn't lol'ing the idea of Akil Baddoo being a prospect. I was lol'ing the idea that A.J. Hinch was obviously screwing Baddoo by keeping him on the bench and playing Robbie Grossman instead, which is what Jim Cowens was basically claiming. After his first game back from the minors, Baddoo went 1-for-23, far worse than even Grossman was doing. He kept himself out of the lineup because he had stuff he had to work on so he could get back in it. I was also lol'ing the idea that Kody Clemens was an actual left field prospect, and was being blocked by Robbie Grossman. After Grossman left, Clemens never started in left field again.

OK, so, nothing? All right, then.

He should just go back to Prospectus. They’re about the same speed now.

What are you even saying anymore?

It’s the only way they can win in the end: rig the election to win and then mobilize the military, various police forces, and/or right-wing militias to subjugate the majority of the population. Because there is no way they can win a free and fair election. And once they accuse the Democrats of doing the exact same thing, that’s when we will know for sure they are making their move.

That’s going to be pretty rough on all franchises small and cheap.

There are some high profile examples like Adames and Suarez, but after looking briefly into that once, I don’t know whether we suffer from our draftees going on to success elsewhere at a greater rate than average.

Do you think Hinch played Grossman at the expense of Baddoo?

Agree. I hypothesized that exact thing here myself and believe it’s the way that pitching has developed that leads to more injuries, making the improvement of medical systems to deal with that more crucial than ever.

LOL! Good one! No, seriously. Which young developmental players are you referring to?

Which young developmental players are you referring to that were on the bench in July?

Between the firing of the old guard under which these injuries happened and the investments the club has been making in the infrastructure of the team from top to bottom, the team agrees with you and is not sitting back and hoping things normalize themselves by sheer change of luck.