SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Recent Posts
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 22, 2021 21:43:15 GMT -5
Ok so this is a crazy yet feasible trade idea so have at it. In my opinion for a championship contending team the 3 guys I have mentioned are all worth a late 1st rd pick. Granted some maybe a little more, some maybe a little less. That is putting a lot of weight on a late pick not having a ton of value. But a few late rd picks all of a sudden have much more value as you have a chance that 1 out of 3 is a real player and maybe you get 2 role players. That would be 3 maybes. So yes this is an oversimplification but. Say Fox is available and the C's get 3 contending teams to send their #1 to Sactown and those teams get one of each of those guys? Smart and his reasonable contract could go to a team that has aspirations and has a low 20's position. Schroeder could also be worth more than just a late rd pick. It all depends on the teams out their thinking they have a team that is one player away or maybe an injury issue. Maybe this trade needs tweeks but I don't think it is outlandish to think it could be the foundation to a big trade that brings the C's a player that could be the answer. Keeping in mind that Hayward, Kyrie and Kemba were all failed attempts at that missing piece so it isn't easy. Lastly, just how much more value does Fox bring compared to Smart? Yes more but is it more than a deal like that? And I don't know whether the C's could make the money work with all the teams involved so it is just a thought. Just my opinion based on past trades, yet Langford no way on a first, Schroder maybe yet also unlikely and Smart is a maybe. I don't see Smarts extension as reasonable given what role he should have. Now I will say who you take back can matter, eat a bad contract and you'll obviously get more. I just don’t see any chance you get three firsts for those guys and turn it into Fox. I sure hope I'm wrong, I'd certainly take that gamble. It's why I asked what Smarts value is, I'm not even sure it's positive given his looming 4 year 19 million per extension. Like I said, I am looking at late 1st rd picks as not having much value.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 22, 2021 16:28:31 GMT -5
So does limiting contract length in exchange for shorter team control along with a team salary floor make sense for everyone except for the top earners? In fact the shorter contracts wouldn't effect them much either as long as they continue to earn it and stay healthy. I think it also solves the problem of guys getting paid huge money based on the past rather than the future. As someone who has been in sales most of my life I have to go out and earn it every week, I don't get compensated for my best yrs. Just like most everyone else in society. At first I didn't give the shorter contract rule much real thought, it just popped into my head. But the more I think about it the more sense it makes. It would be a big concession to owners and it wouldn't have that much of a negative effect on the players. The only players it would negatively affect would be the ones who aren't performing at a high level anymore. I am a firm believer in people being paid for how they produce and this would move the needle in that direction. Limiting contract lengths would be a great thing for the players to give up in exchange for something else that would make things a lot more fair for the vast majority of baseball players. But I truly doubt they will even be willing to discuss it since the big time players are being represented by the big time agents who are also usually the best lawyers and will make sure it doesn't happen. One more point about running the Red Sox like the Rays... I read the comments sections on different Red Sox articles. All over the place, there are people who think the Red Sox already are the Rays, even when I point out that they're going over the luxury tax this year. They expect the Red Sox to go into every offseason like the Rangers did this year. Yeah well I read a lot of comments that make no sense to me, sometimes here, and have learned to discount them for one reason or another. People are entitled to opinions and it is easy to ignore them but it does take practice, which is why you won't see me going back and forth too much very often. I have a bad heart and it isn't worth the stress of getting worked up over someone with a different opinion than me, sports debates are trivial and I don't enjoy getting my heart shocked back into rhythm all that much I am being naive on this but the agents shouldn't be involved, they are lawyers and they screw everything up. I am a Robert Cray fan and he has a song "Ain't nothing but a women" my favorite line is. You can tell me a boat full of lawyers just sank. Throw a bunch of politicians, who are lawyers, on board and I would be happy.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 22, 2021 15:59:56 GMT -5
That is why it should be in the CBA not some owners silent agreement. Rather simple really if you think about how it could be used as a chip in helping the lower class.
Institute a salary floor.
Loosen the penalties on exceeding a higher cap but have levels that increase penalties the further teams go over. Get rid of the teams losing a pick when signing a FA that got a QO but have a system to help teams losing players to FA, like the NFL. That will help the small market teams.
I think they should let the voice of reason arbitrate this CBA, I have all the answers.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 22, 2021 15:09:24 GMT -5
OK so the only team I can think of that is winning and doesn't make dumb mistakes would be Tampa Bay. Do you want the Sox to be run just like them? No I don't. I want to continue rooting for home grown players, but the contracts are obviously stupid and will be debilitating at some point in the future. The fans will never accept the Red Sox being run like Tampa. So they are basically forced to be dumb at times. So does limiting contract length in exchange for shorter team control along with a team salary floor make sense for everyone except for the top earners? In fact the shorter contracts wouldn't effect them much either as long as they continue to earn it and stay healthy. I think it also solves the problem of guys getting paid huge money based on the past rather than the future. As someone who has been in sales most of my life I have to go out and earn it every week, I don't get compensated for my best yrs. Just like most everyone else in society. At first I didn't give the shorter contract rule much real thought, it just popped into my head. But the more I think about it the more sense it makes. It would be a big concession to owners and it wouldn't have that much of a negative effect on the players. The only players it would negatively affect would be the ones who aren't performing at a high level anymore. I am a firm believer in people being paid for how they produce and this would move the needle in that direction.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 22, 2021 14:39:42 GMT -5
I think there needs to be give and take on both sides. No, the owners haven't given in on a damn thing in a long time. And they're going to make the game worse with their expanded playoffs nonsense, basically invalidating the regular seeding as anything but a long seeding schedule. But the players need to give on something too. I'm watching these players sign these ridiculous contracts with opts outs. So if the player signs a contract and is great during the first two or three years, they opt out in search of greener pastures. If they suck, the owners are stuck paying an underwater contract. All the risk is on the owners with these contracts. I'd like to see opt outs for ownership as well. If the player doesn't perform they can opt out of the contract after a specific amount of time. Fair is fair. That way they're not wasting all that money on washed up players. I'd rather see them spending the money on the young talent that is "baseball underpaid". I'm not sure how that gets done exactly, but it should be. But the players association needs to stop worrying about what the highest earning figures can be for their top 10% of their clients and start worrying about the other 90% of their constituents, from the guys not eligible for free agency putting up big numbers on the field to the players who are lesser players or just breaking in to the minor leaguers, underpaid and struggling. I have trouble feeling "bad" for the players association until they start looking out for those guys. But say they see the light and they do, there has to be a way that players and owners can come with a way to reward guys who are performing on the field instead of simply by going for just service time and always paying big future dollars for guys whose best performances are in the past. It'll never be perfect, but what they have now can certainly be improved. Then they can work on raising the luxury tax limits and implementing some sort of floor, helped along by raising salaries of the younger talent. I'm not as down on "tanking" as others. I mean, this was done as an answer to stop the Yankees from winning the pennant every damn year and make them wait their turn for talent. It's a good rebuilding tool. Maybe they do something a little different, where it's a lottery for the worse teams and if your the worst team and things don't go your way you pick 10th instead of 1st. Or maybe the best team not to make the playoffs picks first (but then again every damn team will be making the playoffs before long the way the owners want it). As a fan who is trying just to make ends meet and loves the game of baseball I don't feel bad for any of these sides who can't figure out a way to share the revenue, players and owners, small market teams and big market teams. They all need each other. Share the revenue pie equally. I have no sympathy for rigid greedy owners with no regard for the game and I have little sympathy for a players union that only looks out for their top players and their ability to make obscene amounts of money and ignores everybody else they should be looking out for. I have no expectations that this mess will be resolved before spring training. I wouldn't be surprised if this backs up into the season and if this season is severely diminished or canceled altogether. Hell, the commissioner thinks the World Series tropy is just a piece of tin, anyways. This labor battle is like choosing sides between government and giant corporations while paying no attention to the citizens. The citizens (minimum wage players with very short careers which makes up more than half of baseball now) will be sacrificed first like always. Usually true but the union has already made reducing team control a main issue so those players are the focus right now. We shall see if they can get any movement from the owners. Incandeza that is why the players will need to make a concession in return. The players will be lucky to get the owners to budge much without dangling a carrot or nothing will get done.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 22, 2021 14:34:00 GMT -5
Okay, I note your invocation of the commenter back-and-forth opt out clause. But I would legitimately like to understand what the complaint is. No, the owners don't "want" those opt out clauses, in the same sense that they don't "want" to dole out 9-figure contracts. But sometimes that's what players cost.
In a world where opt outs (and player options, presumably?) are banned, then teams would just have to give out more guaranteed money, since you'd have to redistribute the value of the opt outs to other parts of the contract. Why would that be any better for the teams? It would just take away one possible route to making a deal.
On the other hand, if you don't mean to ban opt outs for players but just to add them for teams... well, like I said, we already have that.
The problem is that teams are faced with the stupid dilemma of giving out ridiculously long contracts with multiple player opt-outs to a home grown player or losing them for almost nothing with absolutely no recourse for a complete and total disaster because there is always one team who is willing to "make a splash". So teams don't need to be saved from themselves. They need to be saved from the dumb team. OK so the only team I can think of that is winning and doesn't make dumb mistakes would be Tampa Bay. Do you want the Sox to be run just like them?
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 22, 2021 14:29:20 GMT -5
You seem a little confused. Basically those opt outs can be put in during the negotiations but a team opt out is a negative for the player so all that needs to happen is for another team to offer more years than what the opt out offers. Hence the owners need protection from themselves. If there is a league wide rule limiting contracts to 5,6 years then that in itself protects all teams from the effects of a bad contract. This should help the middle class but it is also a bit of a reach. I'm all for players getting their fair share but 200+ million is also a bit out of control and it hurts the average player in the long run. And how is it collusion if it is in the cba?
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 22, 2021 12:38:04 GMT -5
This is my fear also and I was going to say it in my post but obviously didn't. You did hit it right on the head though. I think there needs to be give and take on both sides. No, the owners haven't given in on a damn thing in a long time. And they're going to make the game worse with their expanded playoffs nonsense, basically invalidating the regular seeding as anything but a long seeding schedule. But the players need to give on something too. I'm watching these players sign these ridiculous contracts with opts outs. So if the player signs a contract and is great during the first two or three years, they opt out in search of greener pastures. If they suck, the owners are stuck paying an underwater contract. All the risk is on the owners with these contracts. I'd like to see opt outs for ownership as well. If the player doesn't perform they can opt out of the contract after a specific amount of time. Fair is fair. That way they're not wasting all that money on washed up players. I'd rather see them spending the money on the young talent that is "baseball underpaid". I'm not sure how that gets done exactly, but it should be. But the players association needs to stop worrying about what the highest earning figures can be for their top 10% of their clients and start worrying about the other 90% of their constituents, from the guys not eligible for free agency putting up big numbers on the field to the players who are lesser players or just breaking in to the minor leaguers, underpaid and struggling. I have trouble feeling "bad" for the players association until they start looking out for those guys. But say they see the light and they do, there has to be a way that players and owners can come with a way to reward guys who are performing on the field instead of simply by going for just service time and always paying big future dollars for guys whose best performances are in the past. It'll never be perfect, but what they have now can certainly be improved. Then they can work on raising the luxury tax limits and implementing some sort of floor, helped along by raising salaries of the younger talent. I'm not as down on "tanking" as others. I mean, this was done as an answer to stop the Yankees from winning the pennant every damn year and make them wait their turn for talent. It's a good rebuilding tool. Maybe they do something a little different, where it's a lottery for the worse teams and if your the worst team and things don't go your way you pick 10th instead of 1st. Or maybe the best team not to make the playoffs picks first (but then again every damn team will be making the playoffs before long the way the owners want it). As a fan who is trying just to make ends meet and loves the game of baseball I don't feel bad for any of these sides who can't figure out a way to share the revenue, players and owners, small market teams and big market teams. They all need each other. Share the revenue pie equally. I have no sympathy for rigid greedy owners with no regard for the game and I have little sympathy for a players union that only looks out for their top players and their ability to make obscene amounts of money and ignores everybody else they should be looking out for. I have no expectations that this mess will be resolved before spring training. I wouldn't be surprised if this backs up into the season and if this season is severely diminished or canceled altogether. Hell, the commissioner thinks the World Series tropy is just a piece of tin, anyways. I agree with some of this but much of it has to do with what is negotiated in a contract right. Yes the players need to give something back but it really is just away to protect the owners from themselves when they are going after the superstars. Maybe they could come up with something that limits the owners exposure to a contract that is over a certain amount and is not performing for one reason or another. It would only affect a very small number of players and it would be players who have already made a 100 million so I could get behind that. IMO anything to help the middle class player and limit the top end would be a move in the right direction. Maybe it is something as simple as limiting the contrafts to 5 yrs in length. That would be a major concession that could lead to reducing the control years and protect the owners from themselves. That in itself would help the middle class.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 22, 2021 12:25:02 GMT -5
It's all true - Bowie Kuhn had tire tracks all over his body courtesy of Marvin Miller.
Miller forged the MLBPA into a group that could make demands and stick to them. But the basic framework - reducing the "reserve" in reserve clause to 5-6 years - is now a weak link. The owners (finally) figured out, thanks to data analytics, that they can get obscene value for a pittance during those years and make that the core of the business model. That and shoveling lots of money at players who develop quickly enough to provide significant value before they crest and start down the backside of the aging curve.
It's a very different game now and the MLBPA has to make the next move a good one. Absolutely but do the players have the fortitude to make it happen? I fear not and the owners will prevail even though the current system is so flawed in so many ways. I wish the fans could create their own coalition and boycott anything that makes the owners money, send a message. Greed is at the root of so many problems and the ones with the money always make the rules. On the flipside the players have the good fortune of having the talent to play a game that should be fun while also providing an opportunity to get rich. It sure beats the rest of us smucks that have to do a real job to survive. They made the decision to chase the dream, a dream that most would love to be able to chase so there is that. Everyone who decides to chase that dream can't make a great living while playing a game many would play for nothing. Yes I know I just really simplified the whole thing but sometimes that is necessary when looking at an issue from all angles. Their are always multiple views to consider and that is the view of many who IMO don't really get it. I am sure that is how many of the owners feel as they justify their greed.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 22, 2021 12:04:44 GMT -5
When the owners concede anything major, it will be the first time in how many decades? Rather than give up anything, they'll destroy the game temporarily until 80% of the players need to go get new jobs and are ready to accept anything at all. This is my fear also and I was going to say it in my post but obviously didn't. You did hit it right on the head though.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 22, 2021 11:46:05 GMT -5
Ok so this is a crazy yet feasible trade idea so have at it.
In my opinion for a championship contending team the 3 guys I have mentioned are all worth a late 1st rd pick. Granted some maybe a little more, some maybe a little less. That is putting a lot of weight on a late pick not having a ton of value. But a few late rd picks all of a sudden have much more value as you have a chance that 1 out of 3 is a real player and maybe you get 2 role players. That would be 3 maybes.
So yes this is an oversimplification but. Say Fox is available and the C's get 3 contending teams to send their #1 to Sactown and those teams get one of each of those guys? Smart and his reasonable contract could go to a team that has aspirations and has a low 20's position. Schroeder could also be worth more than just a late rd pick. It all depends on the teams out their thinking they have a team that is one player away or maybe an injury issue.
Maybe this trade needs tweeks but I don't think it is outlandish to think it could be the foundation to a big trade that brings the C's a player that could be the answer. Keeping in mind that Hayward, Kyrie and Kemba were all failed attempts at that missing piece so it isn't easy.
Lastly, just how much more value does Fox bring compared to Smart? Yes more but is it more than a deal like that? And I don't know whether the C's could make the money work with all the teams involved so it is just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 22, 2021 11:30:20 GMT -5
I don't know but... If the C's continue on their current path they will be close to having a lottery pick. So you can package that up with Schroeder and Richardson along with Smart as trade bait you have enough assets to get something good in return. Of course multiple teams would have to be involved but maybe that is how they get Fox or as you like Rozier. That is 4 assets that could/should be used to try to make this team better next year. The big question is Browns future health and R Williams also for that matter. I think I agree with the Fox idea, they need that 3rd piece and he could be it. They are a few wins from having a pick in the 20s also, only 9 teams are well over .500. That pick will have value, yet no one will treat it like a lottery pick because it's far from certain it will be. I have to say I'm not a fan of trading it unless it really makes us better given Ime. Now if you could trade that package and get Fox or Rozier okay that makes perfect sense. I have to say I'm not sure I see it because I don't know what value Smart, Richardson and Schroder have. That would be one complicated trade likely involving 4 teams as you got in on a Simmons or Lillard trade. Yet the trade deadline offers more excitement than this team does right now. I guess we see how good Stevens is. I can't decide on go for it or just clear house to let the young guys play and get assets for the offseason. What about Brown and Robert Williams scares you right now? Brown missed those games with Hamstring issues, a common issue that usually isn't anything long-term and Robert Williams just missed the game for personal reasons, before that he was sick for a few games. I've actually been impressed with Robert given the massive jump in minutes. When you say go for it I think, go for what? A playoff spot? Beyond that they aren't going for anything with this team. So I am looking at the future right now. Smart, Schroeder and Richardson would all help a contending team to one degree or another so they have more value to someone else than they do for us unless you are satisfied with just getting into the playoffs. Myself I would rather play the young guys and tank a bit to get into the lottery. If the pick needs to be included to get a potential 3rd star I would do that in a minute as I am tired of the maybe prospects in the teen position picks. Brown and Williams have both shown to have some health issues that could effect their careers. Anything to do with knees and legs this early in a career is cause for concern, for me anyways.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 21, 2021 8:05:17 GMT -5
What can you get for Smart? I don't know but... If the C's continue on their current path they will be close to having a lottery pick. So you can package that up with Schroeder and Richardson along with Smart as trade bait you have enough assets to get something good in return. Of course multiple teams would have to be involved but maybe that is how they get Fox or as you like Rozier. That is 4 assets that could/should be used to try to make this team better next year. The big question is Browns future health and R Williams also for that matter. I think I agree with the Fox idea, they need that 3rd piece and he could be it.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 20, 2021 9:09:06 GMT -5
Still reading through this. It's very good with all sorts of data about previous stoppages, service time requirements, changing length of careers, and more. All of it is focused on the negotiating positions of MLB and the MLBPA. Thanks Norm that was a good read and very informative. But after reading it I now think the season will most likely be delayed. As we have all known for a while now the changes that the players want to see be addressed mean that there will be some hard concessions by the owners. And that is never an easy thing to accomplish so the question will be how resoute will the players be. I hope they all realize that the optics are really bad when the country is still suffering from a pandemic. The optics are always bad when billionaires are battling "millionaires" for a bigger slice of the pie but under the current circumstances it is going to be worse. I have stated before that I thought that would be a driving force in getting something done but I am not so hopeful now.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 19, 2021 17:09:03 GMT -5
The commontery is that they ran the ball down the Pats throats and dominated the line of scrimmage. Yet take out the 67 yd run at the end of the game and the Pats had a better yds/rush for the game. Funny how optics can get skewed. They made more plays, Pats made more mistakes, refs didn't help but the blocked punt and dropped ints were the difference in the game. Have to make the plays when you get the chance. Yeah, Taylor had 28 rushes for 106 yards before that play for a quite pedestrian 3.8 ypc. That seemed like a game that the Pats win 90% of the time if even a few things went their way. I agree, the Pats have been winning those types of games for a long time but not so much this year. The same can be said for some of those losses early in the season. They are still working towards being a good BB coached team that we are accustomed to winning the close ones. I hope we can look back and think of this loss as a learning moment and a wakeup call for the rest of the season. This next game is the big one.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 19, 2021 15:31:28 GMT -5
The commontery is that they ran the ball down the Pats throats and dominated the line of scrimmage. Yet take out the 67 yd run at the end of the game and the Pats had a better yds/rush for the game. Funny how optics can get skewed.
They made more plays, Pats made more mistakes, refs didn't help but the blocked punt and dropped ints were the difference in the game. Have to make the plays when you get the chance.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 19, 2021 15:24:12 GMT -5
Yellowstone is like the Sopranos set in Bozeman Montana. A bit over the top sometimes but never a dull moment. Just started Yellowstone and love it 3 episodes in. If you love it already hold on it as just keeps getting crazier. Good one to binge watch as it is hard to quit once you get started.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 19, 2021 12:18:09 GMT -5
Smart is a great player to have if he is the 5th or 6th best player and gets less than 30 minutes/gm. If Smart is anything more than a defensive game setter then you don't have a very good team. I am all for moving him to a team that needs that guy and their should be a few. Move Schroeder to a contender as although I like him and he is a good player he doesn't do anything for the future unless they can sign him LT. Basically start thinking about 2022/23 soon as this team isn't going anywhere. Play PP and see what happens. But if Brown and Williams have LT health issues it is back to the drawing board and they will get worse before they get better.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 19, 2021 8:08:12 GMT -5
Here's my problem and why I post too much. I've seen message boards that allow people to say stupid or wrong things over and over again, unchallenged. That then becomes the narrative for the board and the sensible people are not welcome anymore. Once it becomes the narrative, the sensible people leave and more of the same is attracted. It would be great if others took over for me so that I don't post, but it is often ignored and then dominates the conversation. If you want to talk all day about why we should or shouldn't acquire players because of batting averages, or how the Red Sox squander games when they're getting unimaginably bad BABIP luck or how much of a disaster it was to trade Hunter Renfroe, or how it's a no-brainer that the Red Sox shouldn't offer ERod a QO, then yeah I'm going to reply. Yes I realize that it creates other problems so whatever response you have to this I already know. As someone who has moderated this forum for more than a decade now (with a break or two in the middle), I disagree. Responding to poorly informed posts over and over again does not tamp it down. It instead gives those posters more visibility and drowns out the actual intelligent conversation. I agree with jmei on this jimed and I don't always agree with him but he has a job to do. I don't think false narratives become accepted on this site as there are too many knowledgeable people here for that to happen. And of course everyone is entitled to an opinion regardless of what might be considered fact. IMO when someone says something that comes off as stupid or uninformed, of course IMO, the most glaring response is no response at all as it isn't worthy. Which is the same as not bothering to have a conversation with someone when you feel it will be a waste of your time and not worth it. Think about it; if you type up a post and nobody bothers to respond to it isn't that a bit of a slap in the face? Especially when there is a back and forth already going on. I myself don't bother getting into the back and forths very often as it just isn't worth it most of the time. I also get how this site actually benefits from the back and forth as the more activity the better. And lastly this is not really aimed at you jimed as there are others who I would say are just as guilty or more so. Merry Christmas, have a great day all.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 18, 2021 14:51:32 GMT -5
I wish the C's brought back IT,
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 18, 2021 14:14:05 GMT -5
Here's my problem and why I post too much. I've seen message boards that allow people to say stupid or wrong things over and over again, unchallenged. That then becomes the narrative for the board and the sensible people are not welcome anymore. Once it becomes the narrative, the sensible people leave and more of the same is attracted. It would be great if others took over for me so that I don't post, but it is often ignored and then dominates the conversation. If you want to talk all day about why we should or shouldn't acquire players because of batting averages, or how the Red Sox squander games when they're getting unimaginably bad BABIP luck or how much of a disaster it was to trade Hunter Renfroe, or how it's a no-brainer that the Red Sox shouldn't offer ERod a QO, then yeah I'm going to reply. Yes I realize that it creates other problems so whatever response you have to this I already know. All of this faulty arguments you don’t like can be criticized concisely and directly. But to do it again and again and again and again? I just did it again, hahaha, typed up a reply and then deleted it. It's easy to do and sometimes wise.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 17, 2021 19:07:22 GMT -5
I know I post a lot, but I do it 3 times a day on average. You just posted 6 times in the last 27 minutes. You average about 7.7 posts a day as a rough average and you left for about a full year, so you're at about 8.7 posts a day. My god how about some social graces during the holidays.... if not always.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 17, 2021 13:05:31 GMT -5
A thought not directed at anyone in particular: If you are about to begin a post with "as I've already stated" or similar, just don't post it. I have taken this one step further by actually typing up a reply, reading it and saying nope, not going to hit send. Move on.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 17, 2021 7:43:39 GMT -5
Add "first division starter" and "second division starter" to "ceiling" and "floor" as scouting terms that I have never really understood. First of all, what are these divisions? How many "first division starters" are there in MLB at a given time? It sounds like it's saying good teams field first division players and bad teams field second division players, but that obviously doesn't make sense; even the best teams are below average at some positions. (Cf. 2018 World Series champion Eduardo Nunez.) Is a second division starter a potential 2 WAR guy? That's pretty useful! 1 WAR guy? That's a lot more meh! I am not really trying to rehash this conversation but was reading another thread which was discussing the OF for next season and it caused a thought about this conversation. Most here expect there to be another move for a corner OFer that brings a solid bat right, that includes me. But how many 2nd division teams would be going into the season with what the Sox have right now with the plan that Duran would be part of the OF. It is about expectations from fans of big market teams that they would certainly have a better plan than that. Maybe it would just be better to say big or small rather than the division stuff but they are the terms we read sometimes. Once again this is just me voicing a thought. I am happy to not be a Pirates fan!!
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 16, 2021 10:42:05 GMT -5
Because they last played on Monday night and now have to play on Saturday, they lost 2 days of rest on a normal bye week and Bill lost 2 days of preparing for the Colts. Somehow, doesn't see fair. Compared to Thursday night games that come with only 3 days off I can't see this as being a concern. Sure it cuts into players time off a little bit but beyond that it isn't an issue really. And given the timing for the Pats, 7 game winning streak and a late bye, it is more of a positive than a negative. Winning in the NFL has a lot to do with attrition and the Pats are in pretty good shape as far as that goes and this will only help.
|
|
|