Tiger337

Sounds like he is too scared to debate.

The 70s and 80s are the best for me. I am also good at any year of Tigers and also awards and milestones. Anything after around mid 90s blends together for me. Since then, I have concentreated more on individuals and stats than teams.

They are all shiny beads until they start having success in the majors.

I have not listened to it either and don't plan to.

I don't care one way or the other about him, but if people are listening to the podcast they must find the podcast entertaining. If someone from the Free Press read this thread, they would be thrilled to see so many people talking about it.

And that philiosophy is nuts to me. I don't care what other people remember. Peronally, I have an easier time rememberng which teams have been best all year long than which teams won each World Series. I just looked at the list of the last ten champions and I barely remembered that Washington won the World Series. What I remember more was that the Dodgers and Astros were better teams. But it's more than that. When I think back to the 1984 Tigers. I remember them winning the World Series, but what I remember just as much is them being unbeatable for the first 40 games and them being the best all around Tigers team of my lifetime for 171 games.

A team can SAY that they build for championships, but they really can't. All you can do is put a team on the field that wins enough games to get into post-season. Once the post-season starts, it is a crapshoot.

The Rays have the 4th most wins in the majors since 2010 with one of the lowest payrolls. It would be pretty hard to do better than that given their budget. Counting titles doesn't really make sense when it comes to team building because you can't really build for a title. Once the regular season is done, it's pretty much a crapshoot. The Rays have gotten the best bang for their buck of any team in that period. As I suggested before, I would not want the Tigers to follow their model of ultra low budgets because it hasn't worked for other teams.

Clark has a strong presence about him for sure. He's the the kind of guy for whom you'll have a strong feeling. You are either going to love him or hate him. There's not going to be any in between with this guy. He's destined for one of only two possible outcomes. He is either going to be a superstar or a bust. That's just the way it is.

The Rays are worthy of some admiration. However what works for the Rays isn't necessarily going to work for other organizations. There isn't any other small budget team that has had the same kind of consistent success as the Rays.

Internet rumors...but yeah I could see that happening.

He is unlikely to cross any cultural trip wires since he is politically very liberal. He insults people too much online but I assume they don't have people calling in to the podcast. I have never listened to it.

This is interesting, but also a mixture of truth and myth. In 1970, 3.9 players per team played 140 or more games, so there were not typically 7-8 position players playing 140+ games. There was always a lot of platooning and shuttling and injuries even when some of us old guys were kids. In 2018, it was down to 3.5 players per team, so not really a dramatic difference over the decades. There was a big change starting in 2019 when it suddenly dropped to 3.0. Last year it was 2.8. In between, there was the covid years. This is a significant change. but it's still just a difference of one player (four players per team versus three players). It's also a new change, so I don't really know if it's a good idea yet. Is it leading to more productivity? Fewer injuries? or is it just a way to save money since part-time players make less money than full-time players? Is it easier to stay under team budget if you have more part-time players? I do agree that the roters should be expanded.

Not too many catchers catch 140 games. 120 would be nice.

I might dispute that. Very knowlegable, but not sure about the patient part. 😀

It's going to get worse once the trades happen.

Yes, have you listened to any sports talk shows recently?

The fact that we are sitting atound talking about him is why he has a podcast. That's how the media works. Name one person with a podcast on any subject who you count on for reliable news. It's all entertainment.

It doesn't look like they will get their desired recession either.

"I drive down the road and I see a pickup Truck with a MAGA flag on it. -- and no offensive to that driver -- I just don't like him"

My original response was about upper versus lower prospects because others were saying that lower level prospects were preferable. I believe that proven player for prospect trades are won by the team getting the proven player more often than not. It's better to get something than nothing though.

How does it compare to MTG?

There are a lot more examples of prospects that failed. I don't think it's lower level versus upper level. It's hoping that the Tigers are smarter than the team that they are dealing with and can identify the right players.

A reliever is off the market - David Robertson traded to Marlins for Macro Vargas and Rolando Hernandez.

Still unlikely though. When you trade a rental, you'll almost always get a player with flaws which the other team sees as expendable.