Tiger337

Rogers will never hit for a high average because he strikes out too much. He's good enough as is- strong defense and good power. That's fine for a catcher.

Now, we can go back to Tork only hits homers on the road. Comerica is unfair.

It's all a game, but one might bet that the rigged stock market will follow the rigged fed numbers. Of course, it's best just to make a plan and stick with it, which is what I do 90% of the time.

CDs are pretty good now. You can get more than 5% short term and more than 4.5% for five years. That won't beat the expetecd average of a stock index fund but it gives you are reasonable return on money that you'll be needing soon.

Except when you get old, you need to be careful about how big of a percentage you have invested in stocks. You don't want to be taking out money in the middle of stock market crash which sets you investments back several years. I have my money in buckets where the longest term bucket is in stocks but money that I might need in 5-10 years is invested more conservatively. The relatively high interest rates on CDs are good for that.

This true. I will add that even if roster sizes were unlimited, I think there is a limit to the number of humans that can pitch effectively in the majors for even one inning.

Everybody blamed their losing on too many strikeouts, but it was off course bad run prevention - both pitching and fielding.

All I remember about Aldred is that he was terrible. Then he left and was terrible for some other teams and finally the Tigers got him back. That's the 90s Tigers.

I was too.

Pud Galvin 1884 72 GS 71 CG 155 ERA+ 20.5 WAR. He was on the juice though - animal testosterone And he couldn't hit.

I don't like to compare WAR for hitters and pitchers anyway. It's apples and oranges and I'm not sure it's measuring the same thing. I believe pitcher value can be understated. For example, I think an average starter who can give you 150+ innings is actually better than average position player because so few pitchers remain healthy all year. It is also probably easier to hide a replacement level position player for a couple of weeks than a replacement level starter.

But baseball is my escape from the real world. 😃

I am better with the long-time franchises in the grid because it's easier for me to come up with combos from from 70s, 80s and 90s than more recent years. I think it's because I follow the game differently now. When I was younger, I would follow all the teams by reading team by team stats in The Sporting News and later Baseball Weekly. It was all right there in one place and that was my only chance to see all the stats. Now, I just look up one player at a time whenever I have a question and some teams I don't care about much, so I just don't follow them as closely. The other thing is fantasy baseball has made me care less about teams and more about individuals.

I am impressed that you know how all that stuff works and I am sure there are lots of stuff teams do that I don't think about. However, there is a large variation among teams in budgets and how they approach contracts. Teams with larger budgets still have to be careful, but they have a lot more freedom. The Yankees and Dodgers are going to worry less about adding a 7 million salary than the Rays and Athletics. Last year, the Rangers went nuts signing everybody. A couple of years ago, it was the Padres. I am not suggesting the Tigers do something similar, but making the point that teams operately differently.

But if I had as much money as they do, I could buy any car or house I wanted. I know it's a business and they don't have all their money budgeted on the team, but I don't think their situation is comparable to mine. If I was a billionaire with a wife and three children and I bought a two room house because it fit my business budget, I don't think my hypothetical wife would see that as a shrewd move.

It is different from the hypothetical, but the point remains the same. I am a fan who wants to see the best team possible. If they dropped Candelario so they would have money in their budget to sign a Lorenzen (have no idea if that's true), I would see that as a negative rather than a shrewd move.

I understand that, but when the Tigers lose a player that I like (and I am not really talking about Candelario because he's not very important) I am not going to be happy even if it's the "right" financial move. For example, if Greene becomes a star and they trade him in a few years for less than he's worth because they don't feel they can afford his contract, I am not going to rationalize it by saying they made a smart business move. I am just going to be disappointed that they lost him.

I might do that too, but I think the pros already beat us to it. The market has performed very well in the first half of the year.

I feel very little connection to the team owner and the finances of the owner are of no concern of mine. The bigger the budget the better for me the fan. I get that people like to play GM and I play that game myself sometimes, but in the end it comes down to the players. I want the Tigers to have good and entertaining players and the owner making money or the GM being efficient just does not matter much to me.

Sure, but you need to pick the right players to offer them too. Ideally, a team gets their best players signed up long-term before they hit free agency.

Better today. Immaculate Grid 88 8/9: 🟩🟩🟩 ⬜️🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩

Yes, Candy and Lorenzo nuts.

As a fan, I'd root for both. When your team increases the budget, that is generally a good thing. The only kind of contract I worry about is a long term contract where you will be stuck watching a player for too many decline years. As far as one or two year deals, the higher the budget the better.

This is little doubt about any of that. He talked about her publicly and allowed Hoiward Stern to talk about her as he sat next to him and he didn't protest.

Is there any indication that Candelario didn't want to play in Detroit? I am not convinced that players hate playing in Detroit as much as you think.