BrianS81177 Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 so with the Braves moving to Cobb County Are they gonna serve some hard time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 My Twitter feed was a buzz this morning over the rumors that the Phillies are trying to acquire Jose Bautista Of course - it seems like the source of the rumors is Howard Eskin who is right about as much as the NY Post so take it for what it is worth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serious Darius Bagfelt Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 Yeah Howard Eskin was on the radio in Toronto last night and he couldnt even figure out who the Phillies would send the other way if they acquired Bautista. He seemed to think it would be a stright up trade Bautista for Domenic Brown. Will be surprised if Bautista doesnt get moved during the winter meetings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Lucia Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 I'll just say this about the Bautista to Philly rumors: the legs on it are so short that MLBTR doesn't even have a post up about it, nearly ten hours later. Also, if there *were* legs to it, it wouldn't have just popped up at 10:50 on the local news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChesterCopperpot Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Pretty cool thing of the Marlins to do - Loria is still a dickhole though http://wapc.mlb.com/mia/play/?content_id=31220231&player_id=605228 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolfan in NYC Posted November 14, 2013 Author Share Posted November 14, 2013 On the Fernandez thing.... it would have been even nicer if there weren't cameras there. Second and more importantly, baseball is instituting a challenge system for replays: Managers will now get two challenges that can be used at any point in the game. If a certain play is challenged and overturned, the manager gets to keep that challenge. Managers cannot argue reviewable calls, but if a manager enters the field of play to argue a play, he must challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Lucia Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Still needs to be approved by the umpires and players, but seems to be a shoo-in. They used it on a test basis in the AFL, and it worked really well IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Over/Under on how many games into the season someone uses a challenge just to give a reliever time to warm up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabe Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Over/Under on how many games into the season someone uses a challenge just to give a reliever time to warm up? First week of the season, maybe second. Interesting that entering the field forces a manager to challenge. What happens if they argue a non-challengable call? What all can they challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChesterCopperpot Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 So Cutch and Miggy win the MVP awards. One Boston writer had Mike Trout SEVENTH in his ballot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuetsar Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Over/Under on how many games into the season someone uses a challenge just to give a reliever time to warm up? First week of the season, maybe second. Interesting that entering the field forces a manager to challenge. What happens if they argue a non-challengable call? What all can they challenge? Put my money on by the end of the ESPN triple header on opening day. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 So, 3 straight MVPs, 2 out of 3 Cy Youngs, and one AL pennant and zero WS titles to show for it. *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Guys really shouldn't allowed to vote for players from the city they cover. I mean the guy from Oakland putting Donaldson ahead of Miggy AND Trout is just pathetic EDIT - And of course - the only 1st place votes McCutchen didn't get went to Yadier Molina... and that was the two St Louis votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odessasteps Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Anecdotally, ive heard teams make it difficult on beat guys who dont vote the local guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Lucia Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Guys really shouldn't allowed to vote for players from the city they cover. I mean the guy from Oakland putting Donaldson ahead of Miggy AND Trout is just pathetic EDIT - And of course - the only 1st place votes McCutchen didn't get went to Yadier Molina... and that was the two St Louis votes. And therein lies the major issue: there are two voters from each market that vote for each league's awards. Should we really crucify the guy who had Donaldson first (who by the way, had a really awesome season) more than the Boston writer who put Trout seventh or the Baltimore writer who put him fifth? One of the guys who put Molina first put McCutchen second and Goldschmidt third and Kershaw fourth. While I might not agree, you can make an argument for it. I *can't* make an argument for the St Louis writer who put Molina first, then Matt Carpenter, then McCutchen, then Goldschmidt sixth. *That* isn't defensible. In what world is Freddie Freeman worth a vote over Goldschmidt? They play the same fucking position, and the only stat Freeman was better was batting average. It's a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChesterCopperpot Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 So, 3 straight MVPs, 2 out of 3 Cy Youngs, and one AL pennant and zero WS titles to show for it. *sigh* Yes - how hard it must be to follow a team who has won three straight division titles 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 EDIT - And of course - the only 1st place votes McCutchen didn't get went to Yadier Molina... and that was the two St Louis votes. KEEP TEH FATHE MODRFUCKERS!!!!!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 From the guy who voted Trout 7th I am a strict constructionist re: “valuable”. If the award were Player of the Year, Trout would get my vote. I’m of the school that in order to have “value” you have to help your team be good, at least to the point of contending. The Angels didn’t truly contend. To fully develop that logic, players from non-contenders should not be listed on the ballot at all, but the BBWAA insists that we fill out all 10 slots, so I did, even though I did not think there were 10 worthy candidates from contending teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Lucia Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 From the guy who voted Trout 7th I am a strict constructionist re: “valuable”. If the award were Player of the Year, Trout would get my vote. I’m of the school that in order to have “value” you have to help your team be good, at least to the point of contending. The Angels didn’t truly contend. To fully develop that logic, players from non-contenders should not be listed on the ballot at all, but the BBWAA insists that we fill out all 10 slots, so I did, even though I did not think there were 10 worthy candidates from contending teams. So he lists Trout above Ortiz and Longoria, from playoff teams? And Encarnacion above Longoria...from a playoff team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabe Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 From the guy who voted Trout 7th I am a strict constructionist re: “valuable”. If the award were Player of the Year, Trout would get my vote. I’m of the school that in order to have “value” you have to help your team be good, at least to the point of contending. The Angels didn’t truly contend. To fully develop that logic, players from non-contenders should not be listed on the ballot at all, but the BBWAA insists that we fill out all 10 slots, so I did, even though I did not think there were 10 worthy candidates from contending teams. Ah, so it's Josh Hamilton's fault that Trout wasn't valuable to his team. That makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Casey Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 From the guy who voted Trout 7th I am a strict constructionist re: “valuable”. If the award were Player of the Year, Trout would get my vote. I’m of the school that in order to have “value” you have to help your team be good, at least to the point of contending. The Angels didn’t truly contend. To fully develop that logic, players from non-contenders should not be listed on the ballot at all, but the BBWAA insists that we fill out all 10 slots, so I did, even though I did not think there were 10 worthy candidates from contending teams. So he lists Trout above Ortiz and Longoria, from playoff teams? And Encarnacion above Longoria...from a playoff team? So on top of being a sanctimonious jackass, he's a hypocrite too? Sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Lucia Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Something Jonah Keri just brought up on Twitter: there weren't enough eligible voters in Milwaukee or Atlanta, so ballots from there went to NYC (IE, national) writers instead. Except...there was a Fangraphs writer that's a BBWAA member in each market. What the hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Does anyone else immediately stop reading or listening to someone as soon as they describe themselves as a "strict constructionist" in reference to anything? Particularly anything outside constitutional law? It is basically a euphemism for "As a contrarian asshole who desperately wants to use this vote as a chance to become the center of attention himself but who needs to cloak himself in pseudo-intellectual respectability in order to place his stupid attempts at provocation beyond censure..." But I only write that as a "strict-constructionist" on message-board protocol, you know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Lucia Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 I think we're all in the same boat here, which is...kind of bizarre. What is this shit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 There's just the one boat left, sir. I'm sure it will all work out for us: Just keep looking ahead! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts