gehringer_2

again, because powerful economic interests didn't want a discernible impact on the latter. They want cheap labor.

Yes but.....Rob's OP says sunRISE! (look East, so flip your flip!)

This team needs more pitching chaos again.

a lot of investment for no return there.

I've met enough people in a liberal outpost like A^2 who support open borders to tell you they are out there and as long as they drive perceptions.... There has always been a gulf between the functional governing Dem party and the public perception of it - that is maybe the Dems single biggest problem.

bad approach by Tork. Just take the outside pitch you know is coming to right and take the RBI.

why don't we have any runs?

Dems may have had the votes in theory, but you are correct to the degree there was no immigration bill all Dems would agree on at that point. The best chance at reform was with Bush, there was an absolute majority given the sum of Dem and Repub support then, but the GOP would not allow a bill to pass the with majority Dem support (Hastert rule idiocy). the Dems are whistling past the graveyard if they don't figure out what to do with their faction who do believe that open borders are a moral imperative. There may not even be that many but as long as the Dems can't control the narrative about it, it's a problem. it's a commendable moral stance, it's just not a politically viable stance. But for decades we've had this weird collusion between the pro immigration parts of the left and the business interests on the right who are happy to support anti-immigration political talk, as long as they know they can count on enough division among the Dems so that between that and their own duplicity, they can keep anything from actually happening. Finally the public frustration over inaction helped give us Trump and the business community is going to see their worst nightmare scenario come to past - either there is going to be a recession, or lower end wages in the US are going to rise.

Tork not picking up Ginn at all.

True. Though Riley is another 'lost year' player and he probably only sticks with a weak MLB team given his performance in '22. Good team/bad team is not even an aspect we've talked about but of course is a big part of who might get called up early and who doesn't. A lot of stuff depends on things beyond the player. McGonigle's probability of seeing Detroit next season could swing on a lot factors unrelated to him- what if they sign Torres? What if McKinstry has another good season? or you can game it out the opposite way - Skubal gets hurt, Jobe doesn't make it back, they are 15 out at the ASB. 😱

this is a much more general problem then just immigration. It's just the current worst case. We pass too many laws in the US that no-one is really interested in enforcing. We pass them to make 'statements' even though they may be impractical or unworkable or just in nobody's interest but the sound bite a CongressCritter got from it. That leaves half the people frustrated who understand it's bad law, the other half irritated that 'the laws on the books aren't enforced' and leaves the state police power constantly tempted with the corruption to practice selective enforcement, and in general degrades both respect for and compliance with rule of law by both the public and the government.

yeah - Carroll and Witt were both guys with the lost year. If they were at one of the camps they were probably getting some kind of work in, for whatever that was worth. So Witt was 22 in his first season and Corbin was 22 in his first full season also after 30 games the season before. If you are hoping to see McGonigle in the majors at 21 for more than a cup of coffee, I'd say Trout is still your best hoped for example as he did play a full season in his age 20 year and was an impact player, even if he did have more minor league PA than McGonigle will get to at that age. So, not asking for much......

you do realize those two had hundreds of college PAs and were older (22) and McGonigle came in as a prep player? So you have a rather apples/oranges comparison. NCAA ball is about equivalent to low minors play. McGonigle will be 22 in '27. I've generally been referencing PA and BR has Jackson, a prep player, with 1017 PA in the minors. He has also totaled 0.6 WAR in 180 games, and he hasn't broken a 100 OPS+ yet. Not sure he's your best case for a fast call up.

I'm not sure that showing more MiLB power gets to the heart of why Malloy fails in Detroit, which is that he can't barrel up pitches in the K zone against MLB pitchers. I suppose you have to analyze what he is doing in Toledo and determine if he is just getting stronger i.e - hitting the same number of pitches harder (which I would think doesn't help him stick in the majors much at all) vs actually getting his bat on a higher percentage of the strikes he sees - which is more what I think could help his cause. 🤷‍♂️

fair point.

I guess I would argue that Judge being 53 on a prospect list is sort of the POV I'm taking. Judge IS a proven generational talent. Where are the 53 guys ahead of him on the prospect list? I just think we need to respect how much uncertainty remains right up until a guy actually does it in the majors. But It is great to have guys doing so well in the system we can have this kind of debate.

And It's just an irreducible reality that MiLB hitting performance only projects so far. You can tear up A and double A, lose 75 pts off your OPS at AAA, lose another 75 against MLB pitchers and suddenly you are a bench player instead of a potential all-star. Maybe a guy keeps moving up the performance path, maybe he hits the off-ramp on the way. You don't really know until he does it. The example of a couple of very good AAA hitters we already have in the system that haven't been able to make the jump to Detroit on multiple tries is more typical than not.

Poor guy.

You should have let Aaron Judge (1500 MiLB PA) and Mike Trout (1300 MiLB PA) know about that.

any loss by a team behind you or any win of ours both increment (decrement) the number. We both lost but they still now have one less game to make up the difference.

Or do you let him start the inning but pull him before he pitches to India? That's one of the big shifts in the game brought about by the 3 hitter rule and more generally by the increased load on bullpens. Back in the day you'd have two relievers up and ready in the 6th, and in that scenario Jack isn't pitching to India after giving up the 1st hit of the inning. But Hinch doesn't have a RH reliever to burn on just India, Holton was prepping for Isbel, Hinch didn't want Holton against India. And in general everybody is more reluctant to burn up their relievers in the bullpen just being ready if you don't absolutely have to because you are most definitely not going to get a complete game the next day.

I suppose it has to figure into the overall calculus. If you know you have the guy for 'X' years and then will likely lose him, you don't want to bring him up until you are pretty sure he is ready to hit the ground running because you can't get a first year when he may scuffle or only play part time back at the other end when he may be an all-star. I'd say that consideration probably has to trump any of the carrots the league has set out for bringing guys up earlier. So maybe you offer the player a chance to come up earlier if he'll give you back a year or so at the other end.

The geography isn't so relevant to the game play, but it still is to the marketing. Every team wants its geography to guarantee it a nice chuck of captive audience population to sell to - and that's a bigger issue for Baseball because of so much media rights money being local. Indy probably gets a more equal deal on TV money from network basketball rights than it would be able to from local baseball TV rights.

Good luck to him if he does get claimed. He did everything they asked him too, the bat just never got there. Probably be a coach one day.

what's a team mate to do? He ( or Hinch? ) put himself back on it after they made a clean rescue. 🔥🧯🎇