MLB 2025 Season
Comments
-
Indifference71 said:HesCalledDyer said:How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity. Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all. I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it. The good far, far outweighs the bad. It's just asinine.
Yeah it's pretty wild. Are there really concerns out there about Harper's character? The guy was one of the most hyped up baseball players in recent memory and was in the big leagues at 19...of course he's going to be a cocky asshole. All that seems to have gone away.
I don’t think he ever had bad “character”.....he just rubbed people wrong cuz he’s good and he knows it.
kinda like Bonds
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14Philly I & II, 16Denver 22
Missoula 240 -
Anyone, and I mean, ANYONE, that papelbon does not like, I like. So I think his character is just fineWobbie said:Indifference71 said:HesCalledDyer said:How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity. Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all. I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it. The good far, far outweighs the bad. It's just asinine.
Yeah it's pretty wild. Are there really concerns out there about Harper's character? The guy was one of the most hyped up baseball players in recent memory and was in the big leagues at 19...of course he's going to be a cocky asshole. All that seems to have gone away.
I don’t think he ever had bad “character”.....he just rubbed people wrong cuz he’s good and he knows it.
kinda like Bonds0 -
That is about the dead truth. If Papelbon gets into it with you, you're about 99.9999....999...% guaranteed to be a good dude.Cliffy6745 said:
Anyone, and I mean, ANYONE, that papelbon does not like, I like. So I think his character is just fineWobbie said:Indifference71 said:HesCalledDyer said:How these two remain unsigned is borderline insanity. Two of the best talents in the game. Bryce isn't the hot-headed 20 year old he once was, so his character should not come into question at all. I get that Manny comes with some attitude flaws but he's THE best defender on the left side of the infield in the game and has the offense to go with it. The good far, far outweighs the bad. It's just asinine.
Yeah it's pretty wild. Are there really concerns out there about Harper's character? The guy was one of the most hyped up baseball players in recent memory and was in the big leagues at 19...of course he's going to be a cocky asshole. All that seems to have gone away.
I don’t think he ever had bad “character”.....he just rubbed people wrong cuz he’s good and he knows it.
kinda like Bonds
Star Lake 00 / Pittsburgh 03 / State College 03 / Bristow 03 / Cleveland 06 / Camden II 06 / DC 08 / Pittsburgh 13 / Baltimore 13 / Charlottesville 13 / Cincinnati 14 / St. Paul 14 / Hampton 16 / Wrigley I 16 / Wrigley II 16 / Baltimore 20 / Camden 22 / Baltimore 24 / Raleigh I 25 / Raleigh II 25 / Pittsburgh I 250 -
hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14Philly I & II, 16Denver 22
Missoula 240 -
interesting article. i guess it's not the owners colluding like some are inferring.Wobbie said:hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another
i'm not sure what the solution is to the over use of relief pitches but i don't think the 3 batter minimum rule is really a worthy idea. personally i'd prefer a rule limiting the number of pitchers that can be used over a period of time. Of course I have no idea how an idea like that could be put into place. too many variables to figure out a formula and accounting for long games and blowouts.0 -
Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth. Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s. Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years. Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years. Players clearly dropped off sooner.Wobbie said:hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another
So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now? Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.
Still not buying it.0 -
the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficientlyCliffy6745 said:
Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth. Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s. Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years. Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years. Players clearly dropped off sooner.Wobbie said:hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another
So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now? Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.
Still not buying it.
"Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."
0 -
Which is precisely why you sign 26 year olds who are some of the best players in the game.pjhawks said:
the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficientlyCliffy6745 said:
Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth. Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s. Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years. Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years. Players clearly dropped off sooner.Wobbie said:hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another
So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now? Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.
Still not buying it.
"Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."0 -
Haha. It's also not a coincidence that the avg. career of a MLB player is 5.5 years and club control lasts 6.Cliffy6745 said:
Which is precisely why you sign 26 year olds who are some of the best players in the game.pjhawks said:
the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficientlyCliffy6745 said:
Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth. Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s. Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years. Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years. Players clearly dropped off sooner.Wobbie said:hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another
So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now? Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.
Still not buying it.
"Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."0 -
yes but not for 10 years like these guys want. that's kind of the whole point...Cliffy6745 said:
Which is precisely why you sign 26 year olds who are some of the best players in the game.pjhawks said:
the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficientlyCliffy6745 said:
Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth. Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s. Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years. Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years. Players clearly dropped off sooner.Wobbie said:hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another
So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now? Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.
Still not buying it.
"Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."0 -
Jesus christ. Yes, for 10 years, because like I said, if they fall off a cliff at 33 (as a charted showed), you are only getting 3 so so years. Sure there is a ton of risk, but you are signing a top 10 player in the game for his prime years. Also these are not going to be your average 33 year old players, so who knows. You are going to have to take a risk to get that production. It's crap if not.pjhawks said:
yes but not for 10 years like these guys want. that's kind of the whole point...Cliffy6745 said:
Which is precisely why you sign 26 year olds who are some of the best players in the game.pjhawks said:
the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficientlyCliffy6745 said:
Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth. Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s. Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years. Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years. Players clearly dropped off sooner.Wobbie said:hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another
So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now? Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.
Still not buying it.
"Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."0 -
I might add that I am arguing with the guy who thought the Ryan Howard contract was good. So, yeah.0
-
maybe harper but no way i'd give a dog like machado 10 years. the chances of getting even 7 good years from him is almost nil. and when i say 7 good years i mean him not dogging it so much you have to cut him loose. machado in philly for 10 years is a recipe for ugly divorceCliffy6745 said:
Jesus christ. Yes, for 10 years, because like I said, if they fall off a cliff at 33 (as a charted showed), you are only getting 3 so so years. Sure there is a ton of risk, but you are signing a top 10 player in the game for his prime years. Also these are not going to be your average 33 year old players, so who knows. You are going to have to take a risk to get that production. It's crap if not.pjhawks said:
yes but not for 10 years like these guys want. that's kind of the whole point...Cliffy6745 said:
Which is precisely why you sign 26 year olds who are some of the best players in the game.pjhawks said:
the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficientlyCliffy6745 said:
Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth. Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s. Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years. Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years. Players clearly dropped off sooner.Wobbie said:hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another
So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now? Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.
Still not buying it.
"Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."0 -
Manny has had less injuries and is the better fielder. There is a very good chance he ages better than Harper, though Harper is the better player. If Phils get Harper for 10, that DH rule change will be important.pjhawks said:
maybe harper but no way i'd give a dog like machado 10 years. the chances of getting even 7 good years from him is almost nil. and when i say 7 good years i mean him not dogging it so much you have to cut him loose. machado in philly for 10 years is a recipe for ugly divorceCliffy6745 said:
Jesus christ. Yes, for 10 years, because like I said, if they fall off a cliff at 33 (as a charted showed), you are only getting 3 so so years. Sure there is a ton of risk, but you are signing a top 10 player in the game for his prime years. Also these are not going to be your average 33 year old players, so who knows. You are going to have to take a risk to get that production. It's crap if not.pjhawks said:
yes but not for 10 years like these guys want. that's kind of the whole point...Cliffy6745 said:
Which is precisely why you sign 26 year olds who are some of the best players in the game.pjhawks said:
the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficientlyCliffy6745 said:
Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth. Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s. Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years. Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years. Players clearly dropped off sooner.Wobbie said:hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another
So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now? Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.
Still not buying it.
"Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."
I don't think Manny's personality fits with Philly well either.0 -
Predominantly white fanbase that use their concern over hustle to be a thin veil for so much more that they really think about someone non-white? No way, I don't believe it.Cliffy6745 said:
Manny has had less injuries and is the better fielder. There is a very good chance he ages better than Harper, though Harper is the better player. If Phils get Harper for 10, that DH rule change will be important.pjhawks said:
maybe harper but no way i'd give a dog like machado 10 years. the chances of getting even 7 good years from him is almost nil. and when i say 7 good years i mean him not dogging it so much you have to cut him loose. machado in philly for 10 years is a recipe for ugly divorceCliffy6745 said:
Jesus christ. Yes, for 10 years, because like I said, if they fall off a cliff at 33 (as a charted showed), you are only getting 3 so so years. Sure there is a ton of risk, but you are signing a top 10 player in the game for his prime years. Also these are not going to be your average 33 year old players, so who knows. You are going to have to take a risk to get that production. It's crap if not.pjhawks said:
yes but not for 10 years like these guys want. that's kind of the whole point...Cliffy6745 said:
Which is precisely why you sign 26 year olds who are some of the best players in the game.pjhawks said:
the below sentence from the article sums it up pretty sufficientlyCliffy6745 said:
Skimmed the article so didn't read too much in depth. Basically, the point is that players may not be productive into their mid 30s. Every contract for a big time free agent, you know you are getting down years. Before players signed huge contracts in their early 30s, thinking they wouldn't decline until closer to 40 and the dead weight would be just a few years. Players clearly dropped off sooner.Wobbie said:hey cliffy and hawks - I'm not sure this is verbatim what I read in the magazine, but close enough:giving a 10 year contract to either one of these guys, probably makes no sense.and FWIW, I kind of like the "3 batter minimum" rule for relief pitchers. it takes away a certain (overused) strategy but replaces it with another
So if they were willing to pay for some dead weight years then, why are they not now? Say these guys start to drop off at 33, you still get 7 years of prime for these two players, rather than just a few in the previous iterations with older players.
Still not buying it.
"Clubs prefer younger players because they generally mean cheaper, healthier players with more defensive range, more positional versatility, and faster bats to deal with the high-octane pitching environment of today."
I don't think Manny's personality fits with Philly well either.0 -
WRONG. i never said Ryan's was a good deal. i didn't really care what his deal was. I argued Ryan was a hell of a lot better than people thought and gave him credit for and that i didn't care how much money he made. of course people hated Ryan because all he did was hit home runs and strikeout...and a decade later the game has become for the majority of players and teams...hitting home runs and striking out. even you've professed your love for bashers these days. funny how things have changed in a decade. maybe i was just ahead of my time.Cliffy6745 said:I might add that I am arguing with the guy who thought the Ryan Howard contract was good. So, yeah.Post edited by pjhawks on0 -
Ha, I remember you defending that contract, for sure.pjhawks said:
WRONG. i never said Ryan's was a good deal. I argued Ryan was a hell of a lot better than people thought and gave him credit for and that i didn't care how much money he made. of course people hated Ryan because all he did was hit home runs and strikeout...and a decade later the game has become for the majority of players and teams...hitting home runs and striking out. even you've professed your love for bashers these days. funny how things have changed in a decade. maybe i was just ahead of my time.Cliffy6745 said:I might add that I am arguing with the guy who thought the Ryan Howard contract was good. So, yeah.
But you are incorrect. Big hairy monsters also have high OBP. I hated Howard's eye. He was a one tool hitter. If he got on base at the same clip he did pre- 2008, I would be all about it.0 -
haha too funny - so yea you wanted Ryan to be one of the greatest players in the history of the game i guess. do you know what his numbers were pre-2008? my god if he kept that pace up...Cliffy6745 said:
Ha, I remember you defending that contract, for sure.pjhawks said:
WRONG. i never said Ryan's was a good deal. I argued Ryan was a hell of a lot better than people thought and gave him credit for and that i didn't care how much money he made. of course people hated Ryan because all he did was hit home runs and strikeout...and a decade later the game has become for the majority of players and teams...hitting home runs and striking out. even you've professed your love for bashers these days. funny how things have changed in a decade. maybe i was just ahead of my time.Cliffy6745 said:I might add that I am arguing with the guy who thought the Ryan Howard contract was good. So, yeah.
But you are incorrect. Big hairy monsters also have high OBP. I hated Howard's eye. He was a one tool hitter. If he got on base at the same clip he did pre- 2008, I would be all about it.0 -
Point being. I am fine with judges strikeouts because he is such a tough at bat, gets on base at a great clip and is always in a 3-2 count. Howard was not a tough at bat like thatpjhawks said:
haha too funny - so yea you wanted Ryan to be one of the greatest players in the history of the game i guess. do you know what his numbers were pre-2008? my god if he kept that pace up...Cliffy6745 said:
Ha, I remember you defending that contract, for sure.pjhawks said:
WRONG. i never said Ryan's was a good deal. I argued Ryan was a hell of a lot better than people thought and gave him credit for and that i didn't care how much money he made. of course people hated Ryan because all he did was hit home runs and strikeout...and a decade later the game has become for the majority of players and teams...hitting home runs and striking out. even you've professed your love for bashers these days. funny how things have changed in a decade. maybe i was just ahead of my time.Cliffy6745 said:I might add that I am arguing with the guy who thought the Ryan Howard contract was good. So, yeah.
But you are incorrect. Big hairy monsters also have high OBP. I hated Howard's eye. He was a one tool hitter. If he got on base at the same clip he did pre- 2008, I would be all about it.0 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help