• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Major League Baseball 2017

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Yep.. That's very true. If teams start to go to 6 man rotations, and I expect that to happen, then the bullpens will become less important. On a 6 man rotation the starters will probably go 7-8 innings.

But I don't think many teams will be going to a 6 man rotation soon. Some will, 2-3 teams maybe this year and next. But all 30 teams? I think that's still down the road 5-10 years.

Many teams have problems finding quality 4th and 5th starter. Using a 6th starter might simply depend on if they can find a decent 6th starter.
Click to expand...

I can't see it becoming widespread...unless someone does it and has overwhelming success.

The Cubs are loaded with excess talent and even they couldnt come up with a sixth man last season, and likely will not this season either.

Baseball isn't as resistant to change as it was a decade or two ago...but it's still pretty resistant.
 
Threegoofs said:
I can't see it becoming widespread...unless someone does it and has overwhelming success.

The Cubs are loaded with excess talent and even they couldnt come up with a sixth man last season, and likely will not this season either.

Baseball isn't as resistant to change as it was a decade or two ago...but it's still pretty resistant.
Click to expand...

They're paying this starters a ton of money though. They'll do anything to protect the starters. Supposedly in Japan the starters pitch every 7 days, and Tommy John's are a rarity over there. I can see a 6 man rotation.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Yep.. That's very true. If teams start to go to 6 man rotations, and I expect that to happen, then the bullpens will become less important. On a 6 man rotation the starters will probably go 7-8 innings.

But I don't think many teams will be going to a 6 man rotation soon. Some will, 2-3 teams maybe this year and next. But all 30 teams? I think that's still down the road 5-10 years.

Many teams have problems finding quality 4th and 5th starter. Using a 6th starter might simply depend on if they can find a decent 6th starter.
Click to expand...

Some teams might use a 6 man rotation for a stretch here or there, like say after they've clinched a playoff berth, but I can't see it ever becoming wide spread. And even during that stretch, I wouldn't expect to see starters go extra deep. One of the reasons starters so rarely go deep is the numbers that show how much better an offense does on its fourth look at a pitcher.

The big change I'm hoping for getting rid of the "closer" mentality and being more flexible about how you use your relief ace. Its silly to save your supposed top reliever exclusively for the 9th inning when the critical moment might be in the 7th or 8th inning if the pitcher who started that inning gets into a jam in a one run game. And its also silly to see so many closers who are exclusively 1 inning guys. I hope the success the Indians had with Miller and the way they utilized him helps bring about some change.
 
CanadaJohn said:
We'll see. I expect Bautista to have a terrific year, free of freak injuries, and again he'll be a bargain for the Jays. As for Encarnacion, I wouldn't be surprised if he takes Cleveland over the top to a winning World Series this year. You can say Encarnacion had an off year, but he led the league in RBIs and was second, just back, in homers. What more do you want from a DH and part time first baseman??
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call anyone making 18.5 million a bargain. The Bautista deal isn't bad because the Jays are only on the hook for one season, with a mutual option for 18 and a vesting option for 19. I'd say the odds of Bautista living up to that salary next year (or even coming close) is 50/50 at best. The odds of him being so productive that he's a bargain are about nil.

I'd call the Encarnacion deal a bad one, except that the Indians seem to believe he's the missing piece that can put them over the top. A competitive window can be short for a club and if you think overpaying a vet is what will put you over the top, then by all means do it. But for most other teams signing Encarnacion to that kind of money for 3 years would be a bad gamble I'd say. As for HR and RBI, HR are nice. RBI is one of the most overrated stats out there. Encarnacion was a healthy slugger in the middle of a pretty good lineup in a hitters park, he should have oodles of RBIs.

Trumbo, I personally wouldn't be crazy about deal if I was an Oriole fan. Its not horrible, 3 years averaging 12.5 million for a 31 year old, one dimensional slugger. But again, he's coming of his best season at the plate and is a poor enough fielder that he's probably going to be a DH primarily from here on out. I think we've seen the best he can do and there is only room for decline from here on out. The Orioles are trying to compete and I can see why they signed Trumbo for what they did, but its a contract with no upside.

I will agree that the Morales signing is a head scratcher for the Jays. They saved 9 million a year on average, but Morales is roughly the same age as Encarnacion and no where near the hitter he is. Morales' ceiling is being about an average-ish DH. Encarnacion's floor (as long as he stays healthy) is probably that. And the Jays are a team that's trying to compete, so they can excuse overpaying a guy like Encarnacion in the quest to make the postseason.
 
Psychoclown said:
Trumbo, I personally wouldn't be crazy about deal if I was an Oriole fan. Its not horrible, 3 years averaging 12.5 million for a 31 year old, one dimensional slugger. But again, he's coming of his best season at the plate and is a poor enough fielder that he's probably going to be a DH primarily from here on out. I think we've seen the best he can do and there is only room for decline from here on out. The Orioles are trying to compete and I can see why they signed Trumbo for what they did, but its a contract with no upside.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with most of what you said.. other then what I quoted and what I am about to say.. in baseball there is never a bad 1 year deal.

I am an Oriole fan and a 3 year deal at $12.5m per year is actually a damn good deal when you consider a QO is close to $16m and will rise by $700,000 per year. While Trumbo isn't a stellar OF, he is worth $12.5m at DH. He basically has to provide 1.5 war per year ($7 to $8m per WAR is industry standard) to make it worth while. Orioles learned after letting Nelson Cruz go, how important it is to have an extra power guy in the line up. In 2014 with Cruz they made the playoffs, in 2015 without him they didn't. Orioles and Cruz bickered over 3 or 4 years. Cruz has put up godly numbers in Seattle (larger park) since leaving. So the Orioles weren't gonna risk it with Trumbo at $12.5m per year. It gives the Orioles length in the line up.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Yep.. That's very true. If teams start to go to 6 man rotations, and I expect that to happen, then the bullpens will become less important. On a 6 man rotation the starters will probably go 7-8 innings.

But I don't think many teams will be going to a 6 man rotation soon. Some will, 2-3 teams maybe this year and next. But all 30 teams? I think that's still down the road 5-10 years.

Many teams have problems finding quality 4th and 5th starter. Using a 6th starter might simply depend on if they can find a decent 6th starter.
Click to expand...
most teams have trouble finding a top 3 for their staffs...let alone 4, 5, 6 who are even decent
 
Jack Hays said:
Click to expand...

The game has changed Goose. Get over it.

Funny thing is when older players whine about and criticize the modern players most of the time it's not even the modern players fault. I'm sure most starters would love to pitch more innings, and pitch more complete games. But it's management who doesn't allow it, they changed the game. Not the pitchers and relievers.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
The game has changed Goose. Get over it.

Funny thing is when older players whine about and criticize the modern players most of the time it's not even the modern players fault. I'm sure most starters would love to pitch more innings, and pitch more complete games. But it's management who doesn't allow it, they changed the game. Not the pitchers and relievers.
Click to expand...

Tony LaRussa
 
senorxm/sirius said:
i'm sure most starters would love to pitch more innings, and pitch more complete games. But it's management who doesn't allow it, they changed the game. Not the pitchers and relievers.
Click to expand...

fb.jpg

lolwut?
 
I understand what Goose is saying, but yes...they're not 'players' anymore. They're assets. Expensive assets that must be protected, lest they get paid for sitting on their butts (Bruce Sutter).

Hell, I remember growing up, when if a starter didn't go seven innings he was a puss. If a starter got to 100 pitches, and it wasn't the eighth inning, he was "wild." Batters who struck out over 100 times in a season (regardless of home run count) were punks. One of the reasons kids are turning off baseball is because of this. Too many freakin' pitching changes. Too many substitutions. Every batter is pitched to like he's Mark McGwire. Hell, they pitch around the pitcher sometimes. And too many teams built around one thing....home runs.

Speaking of Goose Gossage...he was pitching against my St. Louis Cardinals in 1985. Vince Coleman was on, and damned if Gossage wasn't determined to pick him off. Throughout the course of a single at-bat, he threw over 16 times. This might seem boring, but Coleman dared pitchers to get him out on the basepaths. He's intentionally draw lines a third of the way down the basepath to tell the pitcher 'this is where my leadoff will be.' It was awesome to see a pitcher/runner duel. Eventually, Coleman stole second, and the batter ripped a base hit and drove Coleman home to win the game.

Real baseball is still entertaining. Soapbox [off]
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
The game has changed Goose. Get over it.

Funny thing is when older players whine about and criticize the modern players most of the time it's not even the modern players fault. I'm sure most starters would love to pitch more innings, and pitch more complete games. But it's management who doesn't allow it, they changed the game. Not the pitchers and relievers.
Click to expand...
paying the multi million dollar contracts, which are guaranteed, unlike football, is what led to the increased role of the bullpen...don't want someone making 20 mil blowing out the ol' arm
 
randel said:
paying the multi million dollar contracts, which are guaranteed, unlike football, is what led to the increased role of the bullpen...don't want someone making 20 mil blowing out the ol' arm
Click to expand...

Yep.. AND the recent success of the Royals, Indians and Cubs use of their BP's over the last couple of years is going to increase relievers innings even more.
 
Jack Hays said:

Photo by Kevin Sousa/Icon Sportswire​
27mEddie Matz
[h=1]Matt Wieters a bargain buy for win-now Nationals[/h]By adding Matt Wieters behind the plate, Washington upgraded its potent lineup and gave its championship hopes a low-risk boost.
Click to expand...

LOL! You got Wiety because the Orioles didn't see him as the future and no team was gonna give him a big deal. Great catcher, but the Orioles replaced him with a cheaper costing player that does the same thing.

Now don't get me wrong.. rather wished the Orioles would have signed Wieters to deal (3/$40m) as he does have the ability for upside being 2nd year off Tommy John. But with Welington Castro for 1 year at $6m with a player option of $7m for next year is a helluva lot cheaper for a player who is gonna put up the same numbers.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
This is not how to build loyalty on the roster.

Mets renew Syndergaard for $605,500
Click to expand...

It's called business. Same thing happened with deGrom last year. Baseball is all business now, both sides play that game. And Syndergaard and deGrom are up for arbitration next year, so they'll start to make their money soon anyway.

Besides no way the Mets will be able to hold onto all 5 of the starters they have when they become free agents. Barring injury they are all going to make monster bucks in the future. Best the Mets can hope for it to sign 2 of them long term. Would be nice if Syndergaard would be 1 of the 2, but who knows.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
It's called business. Same thing happened with deGrom last year. Baseball is all business now, both sides play that game. And Syndergaard and deGrom are up for arbitration next year, so they'll start to make their money soon anyway.

Besides no way the Mets will be able to hold onto all 5 of the starters they have when they become free agents. Barring injury they are all going to make monster bucks in the future. Best the Mets can hope for it to sign 2 of them long term. Would be nice if Syndergaard would be 1 of the 2, but who knows.
Click to expand...

A gesture now might buy useful good will later.
 
Jack Hays said:
A gesture now might buy useful good will later.
Click to expand...

Very true.

Or because the Mets dealt with Harvey and deGrom the same way they are now dealing with Syndergaard if they treat Syndergaard differently now, that might actually cause more hard feeling with the other pitchers.

Again, there's no way the Mets can sign all these guys to long term contracts. Hell, no team could. We're talking 4-5 guys demanding $200 mil or so I long term. $800 mil for just pitchers? I say treat them all the same now, then throw big money at 2 of them down the road. They'll only be able to keep a couple of them anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom