Useful Idiot

So I read where Prince Fielder and Joe Nathan are both eligible this year? What do you think guys? Fielder for "I protected a Triple Crown winner in the lineup"? That's a form of fame....😳

I've wondered that exact same thing about several of our "switch" hitters over the past 10+ years. But people claim there is insufficient data in their splits to justify change. And I've always been like "no s*** sherlock, they won't bat against an other-handed pitcher, conventionally, often enough to develop a sufficient base"... Just another Jedi mind trick, I suppose.

All progress is change, but not all change is progress.......

Plus, after years of Christin Stewart, Ronny Rodriguez, and Brandon Dixon, everybody looks like Ricky Henderson. 😷

Au contraire, I was first and among the loudest to brand our "rebuild" as a salary dump. I don't think there is anyone who has been more critical of this organization's determination to masquerade thrift as forward thinking. I've just reached the point where I've learned to laugh at it. Victor Reyes is the perfect antithesis to "drunken sailor" mentality. You just need to learn to accept that your priorities as a fan, and the priorities of those running this organization have marginal overlap. Once you get beyond that hurdle, the sting tends to go away. ☯️

I've been thinking about that, and rather than dumping a bunch of money into a top drawer all star, perhaps a hybrid solution is in order? We could, for instance try moving Victor Reyes over to shortstop to begin games, and then pick up an inexpensive glove man to be substituted in later in games to protect leads in high leverage games. We could put the money saved in a trust, assuring that we will have resources available later when our current crop of rising stars approach free agency. Something that might help to assure that Tork and Greene remain "Tigers for Life".

Great projection!! But please, not Javy Baez. Anything but that.

I found the way the Tigers played during the second half of the 2011 regular season to be most enjoyable.

Well, if it works, then I intend to take full credit.

You mean "Chris"?

Well, it's not "just" the $32 million. It's having $32 million wrapped up in an under performing asset hanging around your neck like a dead weight that serves as disincentive for an owner to go out and sign top tier talent.

Anyway, I'll go as far as to say that due to the kid's aforementioned lack of ballz, we will not sign any other $30+ million/year contracts so long as we have a $32M/yr player dependably making outs 3 of every 4 times he has an at bat. If I'm wrong about that, I'll gladly eat humble pie. But I just don't think they are motivated to the point they are willing to spend big with such a built-in handicap on the roster.

If the kid had big Mike's ballz, I'd concede that you have a point, but I'm reasonably confident that the golden age has passed. You know? I can't believe this topic has persisted this long (an existing big contract being a deterrent to owners willingness to take on additional large contracts) Remember when we signed the first deal with Cabrera? Like 8 years @ $152M......2008 I think it was. The following off season Dombrowski was saying publicly that with the recent large commitments the Tigers had made, that we were highly unlikely to be significant buyers.

Yer right, it is. If they are already paying $30M for a first baseman/DH, then they aren't going to go after Freddie Freeman,

If an owner committed to a payroll not to exceed the luxury tax threshold, and had $33 million /yr tied up in a .256/15/75 player who is also a defensive liability, how can it not have an impact on who they might sign trying to become more competitive?

I suspect there is a sort of "zero sum" perspective in payroll management. If you are paying several people $25+ million/year, and some of them are non-productive, I think the owner frequently is reluctant to spend even more trying to compensate for the unproductive ones. AKA "Designated hitter? I'm already paying $33 million for a designated hitter, why should I want another one?" that type thinking.

How about that? For the first time in forever, I actually care whether a majority Mets fans are happy or not! Hope they get their wish. I guess it's true what they say about "never say 'never' "?

Don't you suppose the use of that explanation is based at least in part on the players being granted immunity? Rather than allow the blame to mushroom up the chain of command....

No, it's not "just you". If the Tigers do sign him, then I will consider that a failure.

It's really a shame, IMO, because if Ratko really likes Baez, I've got this strong suspicion that he's gonna get his wish. Baez will go cheaper than Correa, and most likely Seager too. So Baez is just like perfect cheese for Avila to pounce on. Avila will stick his thumbs under his lapels and proclaim "See, I did just as I promised, a glaring hole that has been plaguing us for years is now filled" And the shame of it is, the opportunity cost for the real star we will as the result miss out on.

Just say "no", to Javy Baez...

Obviously you are easily impressed. I think that Baez would be one of the worst choices we could possibly make. And then there is the personality.

I could not agree more. I'm concerned that Baez might be willing to sign for less than drunken sailor money if he's given opt out ability.He failed to impress after his trade, and might jump at an opportunity reprove himself. Giving Avila an opportunity to sign cheap(er) than the top available talent, while claiming he's doing the "smart" thing. I remember the last time we had a former Cubbie shortstop, and want nothing to do with Javy.

I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been. When I used the term "analytic darlings" it was not so much my intent to single out teams that employ analytics, as it was to emphasize fans that make their elections of favorites based upon THEIR use* of analytics. (I.e. fans who would insist "My spreadsheets show the Dodgers and Astros to be juggernauts, so all other teams are just posers" that type of thinking) * or "abuse" such as the case may be