Edman85 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 6 hours ago, Sports_Freak said: The money Harris has wasted on pitchers who have either provided absolutely nothing, or worse, have been totally ineffective needs to be taken into account. Giving Skubal a 10 year contract does seem crazy but if we would have offered JV a 10 year contract when he was 30 years old, he would have lived up to it. Sure, Skubal has had arm surgeries but that's all in the past. And to really consider what the price of ace type pitchers will be making in 3 or 4 years? $40 million a year may be a bargain. Again, if Skubal provides 2 or 3 years of being a #1 type, 2 or 3 tears of being a #3or #4 and a couple of years of being a #5 pitcher, it may be worth it. But....I dont want the Tigers to committ that kinda money to a pitcher when there are other options, as well as other needs. And I really don't see it happening. Like you said, we've moved on. If you think wasting money on pitchers is exclusively a Harris problem, I encourage you to look around the league. Heck, he has a much better hit rate here than his predecessor! 3 Quote
Tiger337 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 54 minutes ago, buddha said: you get a new star all the time. you romanticize watching al kaline win once in 25 years, other people like to watch magglio ordonez sign and play for detroit. youre universalizing your own experience to a new generation. change is difficult for old people to accept sometimes, dont feel bad. 😉 Always gotta think about the young people! Quote
buddha Posted August 9 Posted August 9 10 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: Always gotta think about the young people! lol. but i do think we all do the "young people will miss out on X and i remember X and it will bad they didnt experience X." They will have different experiences and come to enjoy them for their own sakes. Quote
chasfh Posted August 9 Posted August 9 19 minutes ago, Edman85 said: There's a hard cap here, and has been for about a decade now. Unless you are talking about over 25 guys like Yamamoto. Could be that. But also, I have read that any Dodgers scout who shows up in the Dominican is considered a rock star, so that leads me to wonder whether a potential player would take a few less dollars to sign with the Dodgers organization instead of, say, the Rockies or the Pirates. Maybe you wouldn't, and maybe I wouldn't, but would some of them? Quote
Tiger337 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Just now, buddha said: lol. but i do think we all do the "young people will miss out on X and i remember X and it will bad they didnt experience X." They will have different experiences and come to enjoy them for their own sakes. They will miss out on some things, but they won't know and they won't care! They will also have some advantages. Quote
chasfh Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Just now, Tiger337 said: They will miss out on some things, but they won't know and they won't care! They will also have some advantages. They're not missing out on gambling, and isn't that really the most important thing anymore? 😏 Quote
buddha Posted August 9 Posted August 9 everybody says how the dodgers are ruining the sport because no one else can compete with their money, but no one mentions the mets. Quote
Tiger337 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Just now, chasfh said: They're not missing out on gambling, and isn't that really the most important thing anymore? 😏 Yeah it seems to be, and that is going to cause all kinds of problems for some people. Quote
Tiger337 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 1 minute ago, buddha said: everybody says how the dodgers are ruining the sport because no one else can compete with their money, but no one mentions the mets. While I think the game has some problems - too many injuries, too few balls in play and too much gambling to name a few - I think the Dodgers dominance is way overstated. They have won three championships this century and they barely won last year. The Giants have done that too. 1 Quote
Sports_Freak Posted August 9 Posted August 9 47 minutes ago, Edman85 said: If you think wasting money on pitchers is exclusively a Harris problem, I encourage you to look around the league. Heck, he has a much better hit rate here than his predecessor! I guess it's worse to sign pitchers and have them pitch horribly than it is to sign pitchers and have them never pitch. But on a team with supposedly limited payroll, wasting millions of dollars on old broken down pitchers is pretty inexcusable. I mean, it was somewhat predictable that pitchers over 40 years old would be a huge risk and question mark. And to take it even further. I really don't care what other teams do, I expect better from our GM. And comparing him to former GMs? We'll, that last GM got fired...lol Quote
Sports_Freak Posted August 9 Posted August 9 34 minutes ago, buddha said: everybody says how the dodgers are ruining the sport because no one else can compete with their money, but no one mentions the mets. Don't forget the smaller markets...Tampa and Milwaukee. They seem to compete most years with a smaller payroll. Very well run franchises. Quote
buddha Posted August 9 Posted August 9 27 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: While I think the game has some problems - too many injuries, too few balls in play and too much gambling to name a few - I think the Dodgers dominance is way overstated. They have won three championships this century and they barely won last year. The Giants have done that too. i also think its more exciting when the game has a villain. it used to be the yankees and now its the dodgers. Quote
buddha Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Just now, Sports_Freak said: Don't forget the smaller markets...Tampa and Milwaukee. They seem to compete most years with a smaller payroll. Very well run franchises. exactly. i think the tigers are trending in that direction too. not spending $300 million on a 30 year old starting pitcher and instead turning him into prospect ammo is a good sign. 1 Quote
Tiger337 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 1 minute ago, buddha said: i also think its more exciting when the game has a villain. it used to be the yankees and now its the dodgers. I definitely agree. It's going to fun seeing them lose a series this fall. Quote
Sports_Freak Posted August 9 Posted August 9 4 minutes ago, buddha said: exactly. i think the tigers are trending in that direction too. not spending $300 million on a 30 year old starting pitcher and instead turning him into prospect ammo is a good sign. Not just pitchers but position players too. When Riley and Tork become eligible to be free agents, move them for whatever you can get. The Tigers dont really need $30m position players. Quote
Sports_Freak Posted August 9 Posted August 9 6 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: I definitely agree. It's going to fun seeing them lose a series this fall. Yes, all of these talking heads that say the Dodgers won the Skubal trade? Let's see what they say if Tarik doesnt live up to their expectations. The smarter people said to wait a few years to judge that trade. That really does make the most sense. Quote
Edman85 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Just rattling off a bunch of pitchers with 8 figure salaries this year who have done jack squat or close to... Jeffrey Springs Luis Severino Chris Bassett Ryan Helsley Patrick Sandoval Garrett Crochet Luis Castillo Jordan Hicks Kenley Jansen Justin Verlander Tatsuya Imai Cristian Javier Carlos Estevez Yusei Kikuchi Robert Stephenson Pablo Lopez AJ Minter Jose Berrios Jameson Taillon Shane Beiber Corbin Burnes Zac Gallen Merrill Kelly Spencer Strider Emilio Pagan Brady Singer Blake Snell Tyler Glasnow Edwin Diaz Blake Treinen Pete Fairbanks Brandon Woodruff Lance McCullers Jr. Sean Manaea Devin Williams Kodai Senga Frankie Montas Aaron Nola Brad Keller Taijuan Walker Joe Musgrove Nick Pivetta Stephen Strasburg Quote
gehringer_2 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 1 hour ago, buddha said: everybody says how the dodgers are ruining the sport because no one else can compete with their money, but no one mentions the mets. Having money doesn't preclude the possibility you are still incompetent. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 48 minutes ago, buddha said: i also think its more exciting when the game has a villain. it used to be the yankees and now its the dodgers. but it should be OK if the villain rotates a little more often. I tend to think even the Dodgers are going to hit the wall soon enough. That's not a young team and Ohtani's long term health prospects are seemingly questionable.. Quote
AlaskanTigersFan Posted August 9 Posted August 9 19 hours ago, papalawrence said: And Foul Territory national said months ago that Friedman said the Dodgers have already recouped anything owed to Ohtani from the Japanese markets. They are bringing in far more than any other team including the Yankees. 1.1 billion deferred. Not every owner can take those risks All deferred money has to be put in an escrow account. The money they put in there, the interest pays for Ohtani's payment. Pretty smart actually. They basically took a loan from themself and got Ohtani basically for free....... Quote
buddha Posted August 9 Posted August 9 33 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: but it should be OK if the villain rotates a little more often. I tend to think even the Dodgers are going to hit the wall soon enough. That's not a young team and Ohtani's long term health prospects are seemingly questionable.. the yankees were the game's biggest villain for almost a century and thw game survived just fine. prospered even. Quote
buddha Posted August 9 Posted August 9 and it WILL change. nothing lasts forever, not even the dominance of the new york yankees. signed, the montreal canadiens. Quote
Shelton Posted August 9 Posted August 9 Buddha is on point in here. Although I disagree with the birth rate thing. Quote
buddha Posted August 9 Posted August 9 1 hour ago, Shelton said: Buddha is on point in here. Although I disagree with the birth rate thing. over long periods of time, less people will equal less money. but these things change too. not so long ago people talked about overpopulation... Quote
Shelton Posted August 9 Posted August 9 37 minutes ago, buddha said: over long periods of time, less people will equal less money. but these things change too. not so long ago people talked about overpopulation... Of course. I just do not agree that fewer people necessarily means fewer baseball fans. But I do agree that on a macro level over a long period of time, fewer people obviously means fewer consumers overall, so the various forms of entertainment that baseball is competing with will all have to figure out how they are going to maximize their share. If baseball had an actual monopoly they could of course lean on that to the detriment of consumers, but of course that is not the case in reality. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.