Tbadder

Yeah, I really dont care if my team wins or loses as long as the story is interesting. I thought the story of last season was fabulous. Yelich, Hader, Stearns, etc. If the Cubs had pulled it out at the end I wouldnt have found the season any less enjoyable. If the Crew would have made the series I wouldn’t have found it anymore enjoyable. What it was, was fascinating front to back. I also loved the season a few years back when we went into the tank the second half and fired Roenicke. That was really interesting. Why would I put any emotional investment into winning it all. It’s kind of a fools game considering at best any team has only a one in thirty chance to win the championship, and given our historical record it’s seems much less likely than a one in thirty chance. A one year strike would be really interesting. I’ve never encountered one. I’d like to see how it would play out. I wonder what might be learned, what future generation sight have to say about it. I’ve seen partial strikes, threats of strikes/lock outs. I wouldn’t mind a real donnybrook.

I do believe that no one comes to see the owners play. I also don’t believe that major sports franchises are susceptible to the same risk factors as ordinary businesses. Therefore I think we need to be more wary of ownership than players. I’m sure I’m wrong but I can’t remember an owner in any of the big sports selling the team for less than he bought it for or a franchise that went straight up bankrupt (again I’m probably wrong and would love my memory to be refreshed). Given the travesty of the plight of minor leaguers something needs to happen for them no matter what. I personally love strikes. They take real guts. You have to stand up for something you believe in and in the end strikers usually lose (of course there are some exceptions). If a strike does happen I hope it’s a long one and that both sides can agree that it’s silly to play a partial season. Given that I’m primary on the players side the one thing that concerns me is that a work stoppage will probably hurt small market team disproportionately. I’m not much into winning and losing doesn’t bother me either, but what I really like is a great story, and a season long strike would make for an epic story. In the end baseball will survive, the players will survive, the teams will survive; rich people always survive.

To you first point, that sounds reasonable. I don’t doubt your point of view is on some level salient. I’m not debating the causes; I’m debating the effect. Home run-strike out driven baseball is boring to some. I also like European football better than basketball because I’m not a fan of cheap offense. So what if I like pitchers duels better than barrages of runs. It doesn’t matter. I fundamentally disagree with your second point. I do believe that variety equals quality. You don’t agree. You’ve got every right to think so. I support your right to think so. It’s just that it’s ruining the game for me. That’s okay too. Who the heck am I? The one thing I can say with certainty is that I do love baseball though. The fact is you don’t know me and that’s an unfair statement. I’ve played it constantly in my youth, as an adult I watch it, read about it, listen to podcasts,heck, I’ve even authored two small press books of poetry about baseball. They’re not very good and have long ago disappeared from the shelves, but they are tangible proof of my love of baseball. My ideas might be poor; you might be intellectually superior, I wouldn’t presume, but I don’t lie: I care deeply about baseball. Take care friend.

I agree. The DH drives up the cost of players with a less varied skill set, making it a bit harder for small markets to compete.

I’m not using math at all. I’m making personal observations. I’m not using stats to prove anything. I’m making an assertion that baseball has less variety than it had both in terms of strategies and players and ballparks,etc. if you read my post I said I didn’t believe NASCAR was more popular, I said there’s talk out there. Your reality is one thing. It is the dominate reality and it’s the winning reality. Enjoy it; revel in it. You’ve won the day. For a few of us it’s not our reality though and it’s sad and that’s all I wanted to say and i thought this was the forum to exchange those ideas.

Yes the lowest common denominator! Baseball has determined that it’s all about strike outs and home runs. The game used to have a variety of players and strategies. That is being slowly drained away. I for one think The variety? Except hitting triples isn't a skill. Part of it is luck based on where the position player is lined up and/or the kick off the wall someone gets or OF running into each other. If everyone in the OF plays straight up then it amounts to big time speed that few have always possessed. I agree with you on the drag bunting and it's beyond annoying that more players don't do it, especially against a shift where it can be an easy hit. Sac bunting is what it is - analytics say don't give away outs. So while it was a strategy at one point that doesn't mean it was a good strategy. Hader and Burnes threw 3 innings *once*. Woodruff did it 3x out of the pen. While it's different it's not common. It sounds like what you want is something that's different *and* common. Hey, I know what teams could try, how about defensive shifting every batter? How about putting career corner IF (3b) up the middle (2b)? If only the game was different and we saw a variety of (new) strategies, right? There's still strategy involved in the game - that's never going to change. Once again, it’s the homer and the strike out that is the lowest common denominator. Yes, I get it triples are about ballparks and not a skill. Point taken, but that’s because even when it comes to ballparks there’s a generic design that’s slowly emerging. Where’s the new Polo Grounds? Where’s the modern version of the Baker Bowl? There’s variety but less of it. I definitely agree about your point about shifting—loved it! But even that the talk has already begun on restraining it. In my book conformity will always be the hobgoblin of little minds, and when a lot of people start howling for uniformity I find it ugly, limiting, and well anti-diversity . None if it matters in the end. The uniformity of the DH will win out and what I think is of no consequence.

54 years of being a fan and you’re going to stop because of the Brewers getting the DH? The Brewers were in the AL through the 1997 season and obviously used a DH during those years. The Brewers have spent more time in franchise history using a DH for the pitcher than not using one. What team were you a fan of before the 1998 season? You’ve been a fan for a long time and since DH baseball isn’t “real baseball”, what “real baseball” team did you affiliate yourself with? I didn’t follow the Brewers when they were in the AL. I was a Giants fan. And yes i’ll Stop being a fan when the DH comes to the NL. I might be totally wrong, so be it. But it’s a conviction and I do care to stick with.

Too funny coming from someone who claims to know what *real* baseball is Yes the lowest common denominator! Baseball has determined that it’s all about strike outs and home runs. The game used to have a variety of players and strategies. That is being slowly drained away. I for one think triples are more exciting than homers. That stolen bases are better than walks. That Rod Carew bunting is amazing. I miss the sheer variety. It’s a generic sport now. That was one of the good things about last years: the 3 inning reliever. That hasn’t been around for a while and it’s revival was awesome. Who didn’t love what Hader and Burnes and Woodruff could do?! It was great because it was different. Yes the lowest common denominator!

Poor Padres. They just can’t get it right. Let the fiscal hamstringing begin! I will give them props for at least signing the better of the two.

Yost proved himself with a small market team. No other Brewer manager can say that. All managers are flawed, just like all players. We rode Yost outta town and people, especially the media were delighted. The egg is on our faces, not Yost’s. We were wrong, not Yost. How many times have impatient teams let go players only for them to turn into winners ala Ortiz. Same for managers. Best just to admit it and move forward. Until we actually win something...we’ll, it just sounds like...well, you know, nuff said.

Who's available that fits that description and can play 2B or 3B and is willing to sign a one year contract for $10M or less? Before anyone says Dietrich, his lifetime OBP is a marginally better .335 and his defense is horrible. Moose is at least a plus defender. I’d use Moose’s 10 mil toward Dallas K’s 60 million three year contract. I’d live with Hernan and Corey. I might not have signed Grandal either, using the money for pitching. I didn’t know that Moose could play 2B?

I’m so tired of DH baseball, and no one can stop the ruthless march of the lowest common denominator, so I’m giving in. I’m just going to enjoy this last year or two of real baseball before pulling the plug on 54 years of being a fan. I guess it will be lots APBA and history books on the game. You know baseball used to be number one. Now I just heard that NASCAR actually surpassed baseball in popularity (can’t believe it’s true). Whatever baseball is doing it’s failing. I’m sure the DH for the last 30 teams in America that don’t use it will save it though.

Don’t really like the signing. Doesn’t fit what they need offensively, which is a high OBP guy. He offers no flexibility at a time when short benches are the rule. The one thing I do like is that it takes expectations off Huira and he can get a full year in AAA.

I hated him so much when I was a kid. Little did I know that that hatred was a measure of the immense respect I would have later in life. Profoundly good hitter.

You know I really hate that idea that since pitchers are bad at hitting they shouldn’t hit. Then never go to a little league game or a high school game or even a college game—they’re almost all bad at hitting, pitching, running, etc. I’m a Chinooks season tix holder maybe I should forget about them. Maybe we should run all the major leaguers outta the league who are below average hitters—tell that to Omar Vizquel.

I’m saddened by the short-sightedness of the proposal. Another idea that makes it harder on small market teams. Baseball used to be unique—everyone had to run, throw, hit, field—now,well, I’m just disgusted. But as I’ve said before all good things come to an end. When it happens I will no longer follow the game. Strike out, home run, strike out, home run—it’s like watching a metronome. You know there was a time when baseball was the sport of the thinking person. At this point I hope you DH lovers get what you want. Two hour games that end 12-11 with a walk off. Sorry to vent. I know progress is good, but the genericizing of the game will never be progress. BORING.

I disagree. Those franchises you point out are incompetent because of management decisions, not the victim of uneven revenues.

I hope he hangs on as long as possible. Grandy is total class, plays the game with commitment and effort and intelligence. Would love to see him as a coach one day if he’s interested.

I think the difference is going to be the Cardinal starters and Ozuna having a big bounce back. Goldie is going to eat up this division and Bader will only get better. Plus I think they’ll be able move Martinez eventually to the American League for something that will solidify and balance their team. I think Zips has Reyes too low. Again I’m looking for a big bounce back. Buttttttttt....if he remains injury prone, here’s hoping, then the Crew or Cubs could step into the breach.

I absolutely agree. The Players Union should be deciding what Harper gets paid—not owners. I’m all for giving a bigger chunk to the players as a whole. I think they get about 55% now, although I could be wrong, and I’d like that increased to 60% of the gross revenue. But in no way can I support teams determining how much to pay the players, the players should have complete control over that. I also think the Union should determine the length of all contracts and eventually which players go to what teams. What? You must really want baseball to miss a few seasons if that's the position you want the players to take. I'm all for the players to fight for getting younger players paid more earlier in their careers - figure out a system where guys are making the most money during their primes, not after them. That helps both owners and players overall. One way is to reduce years of team control...another way may be to replace 1-2 arbitration years with players becoming restricted free agents prior to becoming unrestricted ones - similar to how the NFL operates with transitioning rookie deals to free agency. There might be rules with how teams could structure restricted fa offers (for instance, limiting the # of years to 5 or 6, including a player opt out clause after three years in case a player wants to test the market, perhaps the parent club could retain the player by either matching the offer or paying the player 10% more than the offer's AAV for the next year instead of playing the arbitration game, etc). This could get players a better chance at a life altering contract, while giving their parent club the opportunity to keep them Your way is workable and incremental and makes sense compared to my radical idea. But the upshot of you changes is that big markets get even more control over the market place as they can overpay the best players earlier and earlier. Small market teams will lose their cornerstone pieces sooner and find it even more difficult to compete. That makes me angry as a fan, but I also acknowledge that your proposal is the future.

This is exactly what I’d like to see and of course it would never happen. Players right now are only responsible for grabbing as much as they can in the hopes of vaguely helping some players with the same numbers in the future. Well then make them truly responsible for each other. Let them overpay for Harper. Let them rip each other apart. Let them feel the pain of valuing each other knowing full well that a lot of their own members are going to get screwed. Let them fill up big markets with all the stud players and alienate half the fans. It would be glorious to see contraction as fans start to abandon the game and force wages to spiral downward. The NFL will always be king because it has parity and MLB will eventually self destruct because they simply fail to understand that all major revenues need to be shared equally so true competitiveness can take place.

I absolutely agree. The Players Union should be deciding what Harper gets paid—not owners. I’m all for giving a bigger chunk to the players as a whole. I think they get about 55% now, although I could be wrong, and I’d like that increased to 60% of the gross revenue. But in no way can I support teams determining how much to pay the players, the players should have complete control over that. I also think the Union should determine the length of all contracts and eventually which players go to what teams.

I think that the owners should give the players 60% of the gross revenue. This money should go to the union directly and the union should decide which players get what. I also think the players union should decide where each of the players go. This will never happen of course,but at least it would be relief not to put up with the whining and talk of collusion and injustice and nothing’s fair and Yada Yada Yada. Both sides can bite it for all I care.

It’s all about value. The Thornburg trade continually sticks in my mind. I’m all about trading bullpen assets for everyday assets. I wouldn’t be sad to see Knebel or Hader go if haul was right. I hope Stearns remembers we are a small market and acts accordingly at times. Sell high and make ‘em pay through the nose. No way I’d extend Knebelor Hader.