MLB 2012: The Postseason Edition

Off Topic
101

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:
Also this - via Chris Harris at ESPN.com

  1. [u]Why I’m glad I don’t cover baseball.[/u] One great thing about fantasy football (and all fantasy sports) is at the beginning of the season, everybody’s got a chance. And given how frequently franchises go from rags to riches in pro football, I’d argue that holds true for most NFL teams, as well. Meanwhile, the Blue Jays/Marlins trade is a shammockery for so many reasons, the most outrageous of which is the false pretenses under which the Miami Marlins opened their new ballpark. But for me, the worst part is the extent to which a deal like this reflects how little baseball “gets it.” With no negative implications for dumping or hoarding players other than some vague, far-off notion of comeuppance that never arrives thanks to all that sweet, sweet TV revenue, baseball is an antediluvian joke. If NFL teams could dump salary whenever they felt like it, a dozen probably would, and we’d get the “rich-man, poor-man” life of MLB, where millions of fans begin every season knowing their squads have no chance. Imagine the fire sale that the Kansas City Chiefs might hold, which would turn the fantasy world upside down. Jamaal Charles is making $4.83 million this year. Why wouldn’t the Chiefs just dump him? They aren’t winning with him, why pay all that money? Tamba Hali ($13 million), Dwayne Bowe ($9.5 million), Brandon Flowers ($8 million) ? heck, they’d all look swell in Patriots unis, right? The Chiefs are 1-8 and have the highest payroll in the league. Under baseball’s rules, they’d trade away their big contracts, relegating themselves to five years of winlessness. (Maybe they could get Ryan Mallett back from the Pats.) Because the NFL doesn’t let teams do this, there’s hope in most cities. I know, you’ll tell me the Oakland Athletics made this year’s playoffs with one of the lowest payrolls in baseball. But don’t insult my (admittedly challenged) intelligence by claiming a lack of money doesn’t almost always translate into a lack of hope in MLB. In my opinion, in the modern sports-fan landscape, that’s just not acceptable anymore. Among all the crazy variables I deal with trying to predict NFL player outcomes, I’m endlessly thankful that calculating the likelihood of salary dumps isn’t one of them.[/quote]

You lost me with all the NFL references. BTW did you know NFL experts predict outcomes correctly 36% of the time while casual fans 33% of the time. [/quote]

Yeah the numbers don’t matter (obv)

The larger point is that the NFL’s current model necessitates parity and this keeps every team’s fanbase rightfully optimistic and interested (read: willing to spend) every single year. For the most part.

And between that, and to a lesser extent the ‘steroid era’ clouds over baseball, you get the transfer of an entire nation’s pastime.

102

The Dodgers sure like spending money.

103

The Dodgers have always had money, they’re just spending it now.

2nd biggest market in the league.

I’m expecting them to either become really good or crash and burn. Some reason I can’t see an in-between.

104

Of course they always have before the McCourt divorce debacle, but what has it got them in the last twenty years? They will probably win around 85-90 games. Is that enough to put them past the Giants, I think not, but who knows.

105

[quote]therajraj wrote:
The Dodgers have always had money, they’re just spending it now.

2nd biggest market in the league.

I’m expecting them to either become really good or crash and burn. Some reason I can’t see an in-between.[/quote]

Totally incorrect. They had a new TV deal in the works that went into effect right after the McCourts forked the team over. They’ve only just now had this sort of money to spend. Their new TV deal nets them $242 million a year just from that one contract. This kind of money is brand spanking new to them but it will be around for a long time.

106

Guggenheim would never fork over $1.5 billion for a team whose TV deal was comparable to other large market teams. It took an outrageous one like what they have in place now to make it worth paying $1.5 billion for a team in an old stadium whose previous owner had the team in bankruptcy and wasn’t pulling in enough cash to pay his employees.

107

So anyone see this deal the Royals and Rays made?

Royals got James shields and Rays received the current highest ranked hitting prospect in return, Wil Myers.

People are already calling this a heist for the Rays but I wonder.

Glancing at top 10 prospects over the last few years it seems 1-2 end up being stars, 5 or so bust completely, and the rest become average major leaguers or slightly better.

I’m not saying the Rays didnt potentially win this trade by a mile, but James shields is a legit #2 or a poor mans ice ( my definition of ace is rather narrow, there are under 10 aces in the league to me).

In a shitty division where the white sox almost won the division, it doesn’t as bad a strategy as some might think. Royals are already deep in hitting anyway.

108

GM-Colletti was on local sports radio this afternoon, said to expect additional pitcher-related news to break tomorrow.

(infomed guesswork/rumors says they’ll announce an extension for SP-Kershaw)

109

[quote]chillain wrote:
GM-Colletti was on local sports radio this afternoon, said to expect additional pitcher-related news to break tomorrow.

(infomed guesswork/rumors says they’ll announce an extension for SP-Kershaw)

[/quote]

I’m thinking more like signing Kyle Lohse.

110

Another major prospect in Trevor Bauer gets dealt.

I’m really surprised by teams willingness to trade elite prospects this season. For only 1-2 years of establishes major leaguers no less.

Trevor Bauer has been compared to Lincecum in delivery.

111

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Another major prospect in Trevor Bauer gets dealt.

I’m really surprised by teams willingness to trade elite prospects this season. For only 1-2 years of establishes major leaguers no less.

Trevor Bauer has been compared to Lincecum in delivery.[/quote]

I don’t think the D’Backs are that sold on the guy. His control has been spotty at best as a pro and it looked horrible in his couple of big league starts. HIs delivery in unorthodox, and that’s why it gets compared to Lincecum’s, but the actual mechanics of their motions aren’t that similar. Bauer keeps his front shoulder pointed to the plate longer, whereas Lincecum ends up pointing it right at third base as he goes into his leg kick. The leg kick itself is also a lot different. Bauer’s leg kick actually looks a bit abbreviated, especially compared to Lincecum’s. The strides are similar in that they’re both really long in comparison to their height, and they both come pretty much over the top, although I think Lincecum’s arm angle has dropped ever so slightly from his first year or so.

I think the D’Backs might be looking at Lincecum and figure that Bauer’s upside isn’t nearly the same (the guy doesn’t throw nearly as hard as Lincecum did when he first came up and their builds aren’t that similar, but Bauer is still pretty undersized). I don’t know what to make of Lincecum anymore. His mechanics need at least a slight overhaul (is it even possible to “slightly” overhaul something?) and that could prove problematic. I think the D’Backs, along with their own in-house evaluations of Bauer, may see a lot of negative similarities between the two and don’t think they’ll get nearly the same production from Bauer that the Giants got from Lincecum before his mechanics become a real problem.

It all comes down to diminished velocity, and with a build like Bauer’s it’s not a matter of if but when his velocity dips. A drop in velocity isn’t a big deal at all IF the mechanics are sound enough to allow for increased control and movement, and both Bauer’s and Lincecum’s are NOT sound enough to pull off at this point.

You’re right though; there does seem to be a lot more top prospects getting dealt this winter than in previous years. Myers getting traded was a bit of a surprise, but the guy had something like 140 strikeouts in the minors last year, so he obviously has some major holes in his swing. The talent is there, but those holes better get closed up quick, because if they can be exploited at the minor league level they will certainly be exploited at the major league level. These guys find a hole and just pound that spot over and over and over and over and over until the guy proves he can make the adjustment. I think the Royals probably saw enough of the guy to think that he wasn’t going to be as good as many think and decided to trade him while his value was still really high.

I really like what the Indians have pulled off here though. They weren’t going to be able to resign Choo, so they get a good prospect on the mound for him and I like the addition of Drew Stubbs as well. If the guy can cut down on his strikeouts he still has a ton of talent and could be a really good player in that lineup. Getting a quality major leaguer and a good young prospect who might be ready to make the permanent jump to the bigs by this spring is a pretty good haul for a slightly above average right fielder (well, maybe he’s more than slightly above average, but he isn’t a perennial All-Star by any means).

Hey Raj, are you going to the Bills/Seahawks game this Sunday in Toronto? If so, could you please plant a small bomb under the Seahawks’ team bus?

112

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I don’t know what to make of Lincecum anymore. His mechanics need at least a slight overhaul (is it even possible to “slightly” overhaul something?) [/quote]

Nah, I think the simple answer is his mechanics that everyone worried about finally caught up with him. I highly doubt Lincecum will regain his form. You got 1000 or so extremely productive innings out of him, time to move on and accept him for what he is now. A high end elite reliever who goes balls out for an inning or 2?

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
You’re right though; there does seem to be a lot more top prospects getting dealt this winter than in previous years. Myers getting traded was a bit of a surprise, but the guy had something like 140 strikeouts in the minors last year, so he obviously has some major holes in his swing. The talent is there, but those holes better get closed up quick, because if they can be exploited at the minor league level they will certainly be exploited at the major league level. These guys find a hole and just pound that spot over and over and over and over and over until the guy proves he can make the adjustment. I think the Royals probably saw enough of the guy to think that he wasn’t going to be as good as many think and decided to trade him while his value was still really high. [/quote]

Basically what makes or breaks hitting prospects is their ability to make adjustments. You see a lot of prospects get to the majors, rake for a short while (a few months?), then go on a prolonged slump. If they’re able to make adjustments, they become good major leaguers, if not they bust or are in a diminished role.

Just remember, Mike Trout was sent down at one point because he was slumping last year.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I really like what the Indians have pulled off here though. They weren’t going to be able to resign Choo, so they get a good prospect on the mound for him and I like the addition of Drew Stubbs as well. If the guy can cut down on his strikeouts he still has a ton of talent and could be a really good player in that lineup. Getting a quality major leaguer and a good young prospect who might be ready to make the permanent jump to the bigs by this spring is a pretty good haul for a slightly above average right fielder (well, maybe he’s more than slightly above average, but he isn’t a perennial All-Star by any means). [/quote]

Yeah, plus Choo is a corner outfielder, he isn’t capable of playing CF.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Hey Raj, are you going to the Bills/Seahawks game this Sunday in Toronto? If so, could you please plant a small bomb under the Seahawks’ team bus?[/quote]

Ha, no.

Because there’s only one game here they inflate prices like crazy. I’m not a fan of the NFL but even my friends who are would rather make a 2 trek to Buffalo then pay the $200/ticket or whatever they’re charging here.

113

While it suck to see Young get traded, Im very excited to see Profar getting to start on a daily basis.

And I don’t think Mike Trout was slumping at any point last season Raj, maybe 2011?

114

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
While it suck to see Young get traded, Im very excited to see Profar getting to start on a daily basis.

And I don’t think Mike Trout was slumping at any point last season Raj, maybe 2011?[/quote]

No, he slumped last year too. They didn’t send him down, but he was slumping. I picked him up on my fantasy team, dropped after he went something like 2 for 20 with a bunch of strikeouts and then he blew up and I lost the league to the guy who claimed him.

115

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
While it suck to see Young get traded, Im very excited to see Profar getting to start on a daily basis.

And I don’t think Mike Trout was slumping at any point last season Raj, maybe 2011?[/quote]

Yeah 2011.

IIRC in 2012 he had a couple of league average months at the plate. So slumping for him. No player stays on fire the whole season.

116

LAA on the verge of getting josh Hamilton.

Disastrous offseason for rangers?

117

[quote]therajraj wrote:
LAA on the verge of getting josh Hamilton.

Disastrous offseason for rangers?[/quote]

Im not shocked to see him leave, but floored to see him go to the Angels. Damn. How they afford Pujols one year and Hamilton the next is beyond me. They will sure be a fun team to watch though.

Nothing the rangers have tried to do this offseason has come through, besides trading Young.

118

I also have to say the Rangers ending contract talks with him last year because he had a few beers was retarded. His past abuse of drugs and current “drinking problems” should definitely be taking into account, but not used to completely end a negotiation. Especially with a guy as talented as him.

But… there were times where he just didn’t look interested last year. Combined with him getting booed at home a few times, definitely not suprised to see him leave. But to the Angels, fuck.

Edited sp. grammar

119

Los Angeles is going to fucking eat Josh Hamilton alive. I guarantee he relapses in grand fashion within a year and it all culminates in some pathetic, ugly scene outside of the Viper Room involving Hamilton, an underage women or two, soiled underwear and a photo of a pants-less Hamilton face down in a puddle of his own piss and vomit.

120

Jays are about to land Dickey apparently.