pmoehrin

Members
  • Content Count

    7,345
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by pmoehrin

  1. He’s talked so much about how the Mets losing is causing him to gain weight. But now that they’re winning, the pounds should start melting right off.
  2. The Mets have been the most inconsistent team in baseball over the last two seasons. Even last year they started the year out looking like a team that could lose 100+ games and ended the year looking like a team you would expect to be playing in October. This year its been much the same. The front four starters of deGrom, Syndergaard, Wheeler hand Matz have all gotten it back after struggling mightily to start the year. deGrom for his part is beginning to resemble the same type of pitcher he was last year. (ERA of .95 since July 14th) Cano has started to pick it up as well when he's been healthy, and he is someone I would keep an eye on because he has traditionally been a second-half player. (.818 career first-half OPS vs .877 for the second half.) Pete Alonso looks like the best position player the Mets farm system has produced since David Wright. It's also the most significant difference from last year's team. An out of position Jay Bruce was the closest thing the Mets had to a starting first baseman last year. This year, the Mets have arguably the best starting first baseman in baseball, and what was once a weakness for the club, has now become a strength. But what's likely to determine the Mets success or lack thereof is their bullpen. So far, the Mets rank 26th in bullpen ERA, which for a team with Edwin Diaz and Jeruys Familia on the roster, is shocking. Familia has picked up it a bit in the second half, but Diaz still looks lost as ever on the mound. If they come into October with the 26th best bullpen in baseball, they will be swept in the LDS. But if Edwin Diaz can find a way to turn into the pitcher he was last year, and Familia reverts to his 2015-16 form, like Boston, we could talking about a team that's far more talented than their record would otherwise indicate. But like Boston, these are also big ifs that battle-tested teams like the Dodgers, Cubs, Astros, Indians, and Yankees won't have hovering over their heads. They don't need anyone to "figure things out," and that's why I'm having a hard time picturing anything but a Houston/LA World Series rematch.
  3. Devers looks like he could be a potential superstar, but Chavis hasn’t been anything special since his hot start. Its still a very good offense, but it’s not the juggernaut that it was last year. The starting pitching I can’t fault Dombroski for. Sale, Price, and Porcello as a front three on paper sounds as about as good as you can get. To think he or anyone would have the foresight to know that staff would be little better than average is getting into Monday Morning QB territory. But the bullpen I feel like is something you can hold Dombroski to the fire for. Even at the deadline, it wasn’t as if Boston would have had to give up much to land a solid setup man. The Sox could have just gone out and signed Fernando Rodney for next to nothing as Washington did. I agree with the decision not to “go for it” but if they had enough trade pieces to get Andrew Cashner, they could have put together something for someone like Jesse Chavez. I’m not saying they needed to go out and land Josh Hader, but to make zero additions at the deadline is inexcusable in my eyes. Whether or not it would actually make a difference come October is another story, but it wouldn’t have cost them much to at least try. Who knows? A team like this could always catch fire at the right time of year. What if Sale and Price both happen to “find it” in the middle of September, while Mookie Betts simultaneously starts out on having his best month of the season? It’s far from the craziest scenario I’ve seen play out for a World Series team, and it could have been better supported for minimal investment.
  4. They had the same issues last year. The difference was they had Mookie Betts, J.D. Martinez, and Chris Sale all playing out of their minds last year. Great players go can a long way in overcoming depth issues, but all three have regressed this year. Add to that an average bullpen that lost two key relievers in Kimbrel and Joe Kelly with nothing to replace them with, along with a few other players such as Rick Porcello doing nothing this year, and its easy to see why the Red Sox aren't the same 108-win team they were last year. I think the worst trap you can fall into as a GM is thinking your roster is better than they are, and I'm not sure that's not what happened with the Red Sox last offseason. The bullpen had question marks coming into the postseason, and instead of signing or trading for someone, the Red Sox let two of their top relievers walk. First base was another position where the Red Sox had ample room to upgrade, and once again elected to sit on their hands and go with the same Moreland/Pearce platoon, even though neither player has proven themselves to be much more than average over their careers, and both are on the wrong side of 30. They did give a $17 mil/year deal to Nate Eovaldi even though he's only qualified for the ERA title once in seven years. You can't be surprised when someone like that goes down with an injury, as has been the case with Eovaldi this year. No active GM has won more games than Dave Dombroski, and he did win the World Series last year, so I think the Red Sox would be foolish to get rid of him. (as Detroit was) But I'm hard-pressed to find much defense of Dombroski's recent moves (or lack thereof) other than his resume. Boston's front office will have to take a long hard look this offseason at the roster, and figure out if they have enough pieces in place to make another run, or if they need to retool and think more along the lines of 2021-2022.
  5. Between that and the Jays getting a home game, I would say MLB gaffed pretty bad with the schedule.
  6. The NCAA has been an entirely self-serving organization since the day it was founded. They couldn’t drop the hammer on a football program that employed AND covered for a pedophile. Wouldn’t do anything against Michigan State for employing Larry Nassar. But paying college athletes seems to be the one bridge no school should dare cross in their eyes. At this point, I would be perfectly fine the with the NCAA closing shop tomorrow. The more the NCAA comes out against something, the more I’m for it.
  7. I think in short what happened was the NL underestimated just how serious Bob Lurie was about selling the team to an owner that would move them out of San Francisco. For every franchise relocation that happens, there’s at least dozen others that get talked about, but never come to fruition. Most get shot down before you even start talking about a stadium. I think the NL just assumed the situation would solve itself, and that the talks between Lurie and Naimoli were more exploratory in nature than talking actual dollars and cents. When it became obvious that the situation wasn’t going to solve itself, and the team was set to move, then you see all this activity around keeping the Giants in San Francisco starting up. Why the deal got so far before being torpedoed I think can be chalked up a lot to poor communications on all sides. This is happening at the same time that the groundwork is being laid for the ‘94 strike, and you can see a lot of the same parallels of people not talking to one another being at the root of a lot of issues.
  8. On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being pulling the trigger on the move, and 1 being having internal about the possibility of a move, the Giants moving to Tampa comes in at a 9.8 The NL owners voting the move down 9-4 is the only thing that stopped it. The framework of the deal to sell the team to Vince Naimoli was not only in place, the paperwork was being drawn up to be signed. The owners’ vote was the last major hurdle the deal had to clear before being finalized. If the vote had gone the other way, the Giants would have been playing in Tampa Bay starting in 1993.
  9. He was, and his cheapness is what led to this deal. He basically agreed to put up 100% the team’s revenue over the next 30 years as collateral for a free stadium. But if you don’t intend to own the team for 30 years, what difference does it make? The downside of the deal was always intended to be the next guy’s problem.
  10. There is. It would cost the Rays about $200 million for each year the Trop goes without a tenant. To leave the Trop now, the Rays would have to give the city of St. Pete $1.6 billion. This is why the Rays are effectively locked into playing at the Trop for the foreseeable future. Blame Vince Naimoli for signing this crazy lease agreement. This is the only lease in sports where the terms of breaking it are this onerous.
  11. The Rays can talk to Montreal all they want, but the city of St. Pete has already announced any potential move like this violates their lease agreement. I doubt the Rays are going anywhere until at least 2027.
  12. The latest on the Ortiz shooting is that at least one of the suspects is claiming it was a case of mistaken identity. This would seem to make sense on the surface, as $8,000 seems like a paltry sum to take out someone of Ortiz’s stature.
  13. I don't get it. I could understand if using the LA name actually made a difference to the bottom line. But as far as I can tell, in every case where its been tried, it doesn't. Around 13 million people live in the LA metro area. Out of that 13 million, only about 4 million actually live in Los Angeles. That means more than 2/3rds of the residents in the LA metro area DON'T live in Los Angeles. It also means a team could do just as well playing immediately outside of Los Angeles as they could in downtown LA. But by using the LA name, you risk pushing the very same fans you're trying to attract away. And for what? For some vein notion that Los Angeles is the only city in the area that matters? It strikes me as going out of the way to attract a fan that likely isn't coming regardless of what the team goes by. They had it right with California Angels. It perfectly reflected their identity as a suburban team trying to attract LA sports fans who don't live in LA. Every name change since has been a downgrade from the one preceding it.
  14. The reports about him being shot in the leg were incorrect. He was shot in the lower back/abdomen area and had to undergo surgery last night. The good news is he’s out of surgery, and it looks like he will be okay. There is also a video allegedly showing the shooting. I won’t post it here due to its graphic nature, but it shows Ortiz sitting at a an outdoor table with a guy walking right up to him from behind and opening fire.
  15. Those are the reports I am hearing as well, which is encouraging if true.
  16. Reports are coming out of the Dominican Republic that David Ortiz was shot in an armed robbery attempt. Multiple people are alleged to have been shot outside of a nightclub he and a few friends were at. No further information about his condition is known at this time.
  17. Every team in baseball has a three, five, and a seven-year plan at their disposal. It's not difficult to plan for the future when you're winning or losing 100 games a year. Its when you're playing around .500 ball that things get tricky. But to answer the question, in theory, I would say a team could stay competitive in baseball forever. It's not like basketball or football where losing your star player may mean having to rethink your strategy for winning games. In baseball, often it's just next man up because there isn't much of a team element to the sport. It's more or less just a summation of individual skills. You can't say, our third baseman isn't that good, so we'll shift some of his defensive responsibilities to the right fielder to make up for it. It's not even an option. You can kneecap an NFL or an NBA team just by taking away one player. A baseball team isn't going to go from winning 95+ games a year to being lucky to win 70, just because they lost their #1 starter. The LA Dodgers have won 90+ games for the last six years in a row. The only key players still on the roster from their 2013 team are Kershaw and Kenley Jansen. That means the Dodgers turned over 90%+ of their roster in that timespan without missing a beat. It's all about planning, luck, and the ability to add pieces your farm system can't produce. No matter how good or bad you may get, that never changes.
  18. The Marlins not only had the best outfield in baseball in 2017. It’s arguably the best starting outfield trio over the last 30+ years. If you average out what Ozuna, Yelich, and Stanton did that year, you end up with a .292 hitter to go with 38 home runs. And all three players were under 30 to boot. The last outfield I can think of that combined that much talent with that type of youth was the ‘94 Expos trio of Alou, Grissom, and Walker. People wonder why the Marlins have no fans. I look at situations like that and wonder why they have any. I thought getting rid of Loria and his idiot son-in-law would turn the team around. Instead, it’s been meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
  19. I prefer the more straightforward explanation of the bullpen just blew it. Any pitcher in baseball should be able to close down a two-run lead, with two outs and nobody on base. It's fair to say McNamara could have done a better job, but there's only so much a manager can control. If players don't execute, it doesn't matter who you have in the dugout. Grady Little leaving in Pedro after 100 pitches was far more egregious than anything McNamara did in game six in my view. The Buckner error cost the Red Sox to lose that game just much as Stanley's wild pitch or any of the hits put up by Carter, Mitchell, and Knight. You needed all of these events to happen in order to set up the scenario. If Stanley doesn't throw the wild pitch, Buckner would have been holding Knight at first and playing in. Buckner would have been in perfect fielding position to make a play on Wilson's chopper. All he would have to do is cleanly field it, and step on the bag to seal the win. That wild pitch forced Buckner to play back, and I agree 100% with the notion that it wasn't a given Buckner would have been able to beat Wilson to the bag. I count about three seconds between the point of contact and the ball reaching Buckner. He's about 15-20 feet behind the bag, but Wilson has to be roughly halfway down the line at full speed by that point. At most Buckner has about 2.5 seconds to make the play cleanly, and run to first base. I don't know if is the only answer I can give with any confidence as to whether or not I think he would have been able to do it.
  20. Bill Buckner had been playing injured since 1976. You would not know judging from his stats that he was doing everything he could for the last decade-plus of his career just to stay on the field. Let alone win a batting title, and have another year where he led the league in at-bats. Before he was a broken down first baseman, Buckner was a five-tool corner outfielder on par with Reggie Jackson in terms of potential. That’s not an exaggeration of how high his ceiling was. The partially torn left Achilles he was playing on in the ‘86 World Series had been injected with cortisone nine times just that year. That was after ten years of taking daily pain pills and spending at least an hour in the trainer’s room before and after each game. Under today’s medical guidelines, I’m not sure if he would be have been medically cleared to play at any point after 1983. Buckner didn’t retire until 1990. People talk about desire and love for the game. I’m not sure if anybody had more than Bill Buckner. His body called it quits on him years before he stopped playing. He found a way to push through it, and still be a productive Major League player long after he had any right being one.
  21. The Orioles do have a solid front office. I think they're just in a situation where things are going to keep getting worse before they start to get better. Virtually any halfway decent vet aside from Mancini was unloaded last year or in the offseason, and their farm system depth ranks among the worst in the league. There's nothing that team can do to improve in the short run, so there's no point even trying. All Baltimore can do at this point is stockpile prospects and hope at least four or five of them turn into pieces you can build a team around. In two-three years, the O's can reevaluate their situation, but this year, the next year, and likely 2021 are going to be lost seasons. The critical thing to remember is that things can go to the other extreme as well. Teams have lost 100+ games and have gone on to make or win the World Series within five years. Its all about proper planning, and knowing how to play the cards given to you. Picking first in this years' draft should help the Orioles acquire some of those cards. One liberating thing about being in Baltimore's situation is that because every position can be viewed as a potential need, talent and salary are the only two factors that need to be considered when drafting, signing or trading for a player. I've also had a second MLB team contact me about a potential front office job. (Not Baltimore, although they are in the same division.) Will let people know if it works out or not.
  22. Who ever said athletes were normal? A gigantic he-man with a borderline psychopathic personality describes at least a third of your active players. These are the people everyone is expecting to play nice with each other.
  23. I’m not saying if Steinbrenner owned Indians the team wouldn’t have spent money. But there are years where Steinbrenner owner the Yankees like ‘83 where they are spending almost $14 million on player salary when nobody else is over $10 million. There would have never been a time when the Indians were spending 30% more on player salary than any other team in the league. Wayne Garland was a good pitcher who got hurt. He’s a solid example of why you shouldn’t build a team around pitching, because there’s far more Wayne Garland’s out there than there are Nolan Ryan’s. Its a lot tougher to find a pitcher who can give you consistent results than it is to find a good pitcher.
  24. And that qualifies as a charity under the definition of the word. What you see as an asset in an owner scares the hell out of me, and I will tell you why. There have sports owners with this mindset. Not at the Major League level. As much as people say Steinbrenner was like this, I will promise you no matter who owned them, the Indians would not be the ones to break the bank on the first wave of free agency. But in other sports including baseball, yes, these people have existed. Why it scares me is because a huge portion of the list is comprised of mafia associates, drug lords, and even dictators. As it turns out, these are about the only people who don't' care if an investment of theirs never turns a profit. With anyone doing some purely for the money, you at least know where they're coming from, and what their motivations are. Take money from someone who asks for little to nothing in return, and you don't know where it's going to lead.