05/20/2026 6:40p EDT Cleveland Guardians at Detroit Tigers

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

If 26 teams decide to do it now, then it's fine.  

It's probably pretty close to that right now, anyway.

[buddha]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Just like twenty-six teams CHOSE not to do so in 1987, too.

i dont understamd your point.  if tampa bay decides not to sign expensive, over priced free agents, that's not collusion.

if other teams see that and decide not to do so, that's not collusion either.

let the mets and co overspend.  you dont need to do so to be successful.

[tiger2022]

8 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

Agreed. But hopefully, Perez will be benched and Flaherty will be replaced in the starting rotation. Melton is on his way back, maybe Sunday?

Flaherty isn't getting taken out of the rotation.  They already don't have enough starters and they are paying him $20 million this season.

[JackMorrisStache]

17 hours ago, tiger2022 said:

Cleveland has the advantage against Detroit in offense, starting pitching, bullpen , defense, and manager.  For like the 10th straight year.

And they are spending $130M less for it.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll

[Sports_Freak]

3 hours ago, tiger2022 said:

Flaherty isn't getting taken out of the rotation.  They already don't have enough starters and they are paying him $20 million this season.

If JV comes back effectively and Skubal and Melton pitch well with Jack still struggling? I could see him being the odd man out. But yeah, the money...

[monkeytargets39]

He’s getting the money regardless.  Just find a spot on the team where he will hurt us the least.

[tiger2022]

3 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

If JV comes back effectively and Skubal and Melton pitch well with Jack still struggling? I could see him being the odd man out. But yeah, the money...

Flaherty is still much better than Verlander.  As long as the Tigers still think about playoffs, they don't want Verlander anywhere near the mound.

[Sports_Freak]

3 hours ago, tiger2022 said:

Flaherty is still much better than Verlander.  As long as the Tigers still think about playoffs, they don't want Verlander anywhere near the mound.

Is Flaherty better than JV? IDK, JV hasnt been healthy. Flaherty isnt very good, if it comes down to him or Montero, who would you rather see? The money Flaherty is making gives him a very long leash but he's horribly inconsistent.

[tiger2022]

I thought they signed Verlander just to give him a parade lap and then the organization would put him on the IL regardless of if he were hurt or not after 3 or 4 starts and bring him back to pitch one last game at the end of the season.  It was just as bad as the Alex Cobb signing.  

Flaherty hasn't been very good but I think Verlander should have hung up his spikes a few years ago.  It's kind of like watching Aaron Rodgers try to play QB last season.

[Tiger337]

6 hours ago, tiger2022 said:

Flaherty is still much better than Verlander.  As long as the Tigers still think about playoffs, they don't want Verlander anywhere near the mound.

Verlander was better than Flaherty last year.  I agree he probably won't do anything this year, but I think you are exaggerating how hopeless he is.  

[chasfh]

14 hours ago, buddha said:

i dont understamd your point.  if tampa bay decides not to sign expensive, over priced free agents, that's not collusion.

if other teams see that and decide not to do so, that's not collusion either.

let the mets and co overspend.  you dont need to do so to be successful.

I acknowledge I probably misunderstood you, as had I thought you were suggesting that “bad” free agent contracts (my quote marks, and open to personal interpretation) would stop if all the teams would just stop signing such players, which would require collusion; unless (again, as I misthought) you were suggesting each of the 30 teams could just decide on their own to stop signing such players by zeitgeist and the “bad” free agents contracts would just stop, which we both know would never happen.

That would leave the question, knowing there will be some teams who will sign such “bad” contracts even as most teams never would, can a team who never does so compete just as effectively over the long term as teams who do sign such contracts? The first example that might fly into mind could be the Brewers, who seemingly win the NLC every year without a stratospheric payroll, but even they can’t be considered a team that never indulges in “bad” contracts, since they did sign Yelich to a 9/215 that has never looked really good since, and won’t for the next 2-2/3 seasons.