Tiger337

Rogers is fine for now. There is no need to move him, but he's 28 so I don't think he is someone to build around either. We'll probably never know who was was coming back in the trade, but Roriguez and Rogers really should have brought back a couple of top prospects.

That is fine. Fans don't have to like all the same players. I disliked Pudge Rodriguez after he quit on the team a couple of times. I don't care if he opts out or gets traded. What I disagreed with was the idea that he would be traded for below market value if he does opt in. I don't think that would be a good outcome.

He's a solid left-handed starter. That is one of the most valuable products in sports. I really doubt he is damaged goods. If he continues to pitch well and the option is out of the way, he won't be difficult to trade for market value.

I also doubt that move would be unanimously supported within the organization. Trading him at market value at the next trading deadline would be a different story. Settling for less because you feel disrespected seems like a loser move. Ultimately, I think he'll opt out.

If he does well the rest of the way, opts in and then gets traded for less than market value, I will be one of the people criticizing Harris.

Trump's anti-intellectualism and lack of self control is an essential part of the show. Take away that and a good chunk of his base will get dis-interested which may offset gains from the moderates.

Enough with the Immaculate nerdery. There was a baseball brawl tonight. "Down goes Anderson! Down goes Anderson!"

I have always appreciated roster flebility. I just don't want the whole team to revolve around it.

It better not be the Tigers! He is still below replacement level for the season. I think if he really wanted to play and was willing to do so for minimum salary, some team would give him a shot.

I don't know if it's as high as 90%. There aren't a lot of players where they would worry about service time. It's just that the 100 cutoff seems arbitrary to me. If they genuinely want it to be an incentive, just make everyone eligible. As others have mentioned it's probably not a significant incentive in most cases which is probably why the union didn't push it all the way. They would just be giving up leverage on more important issues.

No, I never said anything remotely like that. I asked a simple question and kept asking it a different way until people got it. Not surprisingly, you weren't one of the helpful ones.

Have you been there other than spring training? It's a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

So, the Tigers are closer by committee now? Each day a new pitcher gets a one out save after Lange walks everybody.

I don't believe Rosenthal makes things up or that he is biased. I think it's really difficult to predict trades with many owners being secretive and others floating stuff out there as decption. That's why none of the reporters are good at forecasting trades.

That would by my guess as well.

I think one exec's 50th player might be another exec's 110th. But, even if they did view them all the same, one organization that didn't have a top 100 prospect might be inclined to suppress the service time of one of their top prospects. Should that organization not be incentivized to bring him up when he's ready?

I am the opposite. I am better with pre-2000 players. I follow all the current players, but my focus has switched from teams to individuals. I don't care about awards much, but I can guess who won them.

But "top prospect" is arbitrary. What one organization might view as a top prospect might be different from another organization and both organizations might want to suppress the service time regardless of whether they appear on a list.

which is why I don't understand limiting it too arbitrary top 100 lists.

That is kind of par for the course though. Perhaps they'll ramp that up in an obvious way. He needs to do something to show his reporters that he is "fighting for them".

Any ideas on what the big cheating maneuver is going to be in the 2024 election? Trump has convinced his cult that the dems stole the election in 2020. So, the Reps must cheat in 2024. It won't be something sneaky. It will be very obvious, because it wouldn't be fun for Trump otherwise. What will it be?

Psychopath, not addict. If there was some personal benefit to keeping to himself, he would do it.

That was the easiest one ever, but I messed up trying to identify less obvious players.

Why do they have be in the top 100 on some arbitrary list? Why can't anyone qualify?

I agree with this. It seems a lot of people turned on him based on the article by Rosenthal. I am still not clear on the timing of events there. I don't know exactly what happened last year either.