What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

**Official 2014 MLB Regular Season-All over but the shouting (1 Viewer)

shadyridr said:
Premier said:
I have a buddy who works for the Rays. An ops guy came and talked to them:

They love what they got it return. Not only because of the talent but they have control for years to come. The adames kid they are projecting to be an absolute stud, in 3 or 4 years.

By no means does this mean we're given up this season. Still have Myers (August) and dejesus (late August) coming back. Just when it got to the numbers of it, we were only getting 10ish more games out of price the possible outcomes of those and what smyley could do wasn't worth keeping price around who honestly wasn't going to resign here anyways.
Click to expand...
i like Smyly so i dont think theres anything wrong with the deal. I think the biggest issue is it seems to me at least the sox got more for lester than the rays got for price, which seems odd.
Click to expand...
Really can't compare given the respective payroll's of Boston vs. Tampa. Totally changes everything from an organizational p.o.v.

 
Doctor Detroit said:
shadyridr said:
Doctor Detroit said:
shadyridr said:
Premier said:
I have a buddy who works for the Rays. An ops guy came and talked to them:

They love what they got it return. Not only because of the talent but they have control for years to come. The adames kid they are projecting to be an absolute stud, in 3 or 4 years.

By no means does this mean we're given up this season. Still have Myers (August) and dejesus (late August) coming back. Just when it got to the numbers of it, we were only getting 10ish more games out of price the possible outcomes of those and what smyley could do wasn't worth keeping price around who honestly wasn't going to resign here anyways.
Click to expand...
i like Smyly so i dont think theres anything wrong with the deal. I think the biggest issue is it seems to me at least the sox got more for lester than the rays got for price, which seems odd.
Click to expand...
What did they get? One year and two months of Cespedes? That's better than locking in an above average starter for the rest of the decade, a high upside 2B and a raw shortstop?
Click to expand...
i think so. Never know with those other guys if they will develop. Cespedes has been an all-star already and had potential to get better.Of course the rays cant afford cespedes so its unfair to compare the deals.
Click to expand...
ballpark change could certainly help. I'd take the Rays package though, they got a middle of the rotation guy and a starting 2Bman for sure. If the prospect works out, bonus. Obviously teams weren't willing to send them elite prospects, they did what they thought was best and I think they came out alright.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for everyone but I think I read too much on the twitter and blogosphere. All I kept reading were GMs and "league sources" saying they would deal Price but only if they were knocked over and couldn't say no. Just seems like this wasn't one of those deals. Now if I hadn't read all the quotes coming out, it probably would seem like a better trade than I believe it is. Too much (bull####) information.

 
Doctor Detroit said:
Smack Tripper said:
I wonder if people were down on Price's velocity drop. Smyly and Franklin are nice players, but man that seems zilch to get back. Franklin's stock is way down and Smyly is a 3 starter at best.
Click to expand...
He'd be the #1 on the 31 July Yankees team. :mellow:
Click to expand...
good point, his velocity is at the same level as last year.

Now that I think about it, I wonder if Tampa was worried about him. You have him next year, why not wait on making the right deal, if you must make a deal at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doctor Detroit said:
shadyridr said:
Premier said:
I have a buddy who works for the Rays. An ops guy came and talked to them:

They love what they got it return. Not only because of the talent but they have control for years to come. The adames kid they are projecting to be an absolute stud, in 3 or 4 years.

By no means does this mean we're given up this season. Still have Myers (August) and dejesus (late August) coming back. Just when it got to the numbers of it, we were only getting 10ish more games out of price the possible outcomes of those and what smyley could do wasn't worth keeping price around who honestly wasn't going to resign here anyways.
Click to expand...
i like Smyly so i dont think theres anything wrong with the deal. I think the biggest issue is it seems to me at least the sox got more for lester than the rays got for price, which seems odd.
Click to expand...
What did they get? One year and two months of Cespedes? That's better than locking in an above average starter for the rest of the decade, a high upside 2B and a raw shortstop?
Click to expand...
Blinded by hate

 
Tyler Skaggs throwing a no hitter through 4 2/3 innings, is gone after a funny landing after a pitch. They didn't even hesitate removing him, looked weird.

 
the moops said:
JaxBill said:
That review by the Reds in Miami is a total embarrassment for baseball and changed the entire game.
Click to expand...
:shrug: You can't block the plate without the ball. It's not that complicated
Click to expand...
The ball was on that side of the plate. Catcher is allowed to, you know, try to catch the ball. And the ball beat him by so much he didn't even try to slide.

And if it's that clear-cut then why did it take SIX MINUTES to come up with that decision?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aroldis Chapman grabbing right hamstring

eta - staying in game for last pitch and save

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope game 7 of the World Series is decided in the bottom of the 9th by two idiot umpires standing behind home plate wearing beats by dre on that exact same play.

 
Good Posting Judge said:
Raider Nation said:
Raider Nation said:
How many guys in the bigs right now are slower than Pujols? He barely scored from 2nd on a double. :lmao:
Click to expand...
Al and his piano likely cost the Halos a win tonight. Couldn't score from 1st in the 12th inning on a double by Hamilton which dribbled towards the wall.

About 60% of players who retired in the past ten years score on that ball right now.
Click to expand...
I remember seeing somewhere that a scout graded Pujols a "20" on the 20-80 scale in terms of his speed during spring training. Gonna be fun to see him in five years.
Click to expand...
Manny has coffee and a sandwich; throws out Albert. :lol:

Almost identical to a play from last night, BTW.

 
I'm not totally crazy about the Cespedes deal but I'm keeping an open mind about it.

I do think they made out better than the Rays though. The Rays didnt get much, they better hope this prospect pans out, that's a pretty big gamble.

 
Raider Nation said:
Jefferson the Caregiver said:
the moops said:
JaxBill said:
That review by the Reds in Miami is a total embarrassment for baseball and changed the entire game.
Click to expand...
:shrug: You can't block the plate without the ball. It's not that complicated
Click to expand...
Im going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt that you said this without seeing the replay.

Regardless, you are dead wrong about this one.
Click to expand...
Let us know when moops is right about something.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
 
Wrigley said:
DET now owns the last 3 Cy Young winners and the last 3 MVPs
Click to expand...
I keep hearing this. Pretty cool until you realize that a third of the equation (one Cy Young, one MVP) belong to a guy who's currently sporting a 4.79 ERA.

(and also that two of the MVPS should've gone to Trout)

 
BobbyLayne said:
the moops said:
JaxBill said:
That review by the Reds in Miami is a total embarrassment for baseball and changed the entire game.
Click to expand...
:shrug: You can't block the plate without the ball. It's not that complicated
Click to expand...
The throw took the catcher up the line to catch the ball. Runner was out by 8-10 feet; catcher had the ball. #### giving the runner a lane, he had the ball.

That's a ####### horse#### call.
Click to expand...
The problem as I see it is that he never gave the runner a line. He was set up to block the plate the whole time. So saying the throw took him into the path isn't really correct since standing in the path will always result in the throw taking you into the path.

And the problem is, if you don't give the runner a lane, what do you expect him to do? Just give up? I don't really like the rule at all but you can't block the plate and say he can't run the catcher over. Need to pick one or the other.

 
sporthenry said:
BobbyLayne said:
the moops said:
JaxBill said:
That review by the Reds in Miami is a total embarrassment for baseball and changed the entire game.
Click to expand...
:shrug: You can't block the plate without the ball. It's not that complicated
Click to expand...
The throw took the catcher up the line to catch the ball. Runner was out by 8-10 feet; catcher had the ball. #### giving the runner a lane, he had the ball.

That's a ####### horse#### call.
Click to expand...
The problem as I see it is that he never gave the runner a line. He was set up to block the plate the whole time. So saying the throw took him into the path isn't really correct since standing in the path will always result in the throw taking you into the path.

And the problem is, if you don't give the runner a lane, what do you expect him to do? Just give up? I don't really like the rule at all but you can't block the plate and say he can't run the catcher over. Need to pick one or the other.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. When he first set up, his foot was behind the plate. He was giving the runner the entire plate to slide into. Once the throw was made, he shuffled forward so he could catch the throw.

 
rodg12 said:
sporthenry said:
BobbyLayne said:
the moops said:
JaxBill said:
That review by the Reds in Miami is a total embarrassment for baseball and changed the entire game.
Click to expand...
:shrug: You can't block the plate without the ball. It's not that complicated
Click to expand...
The throw took the catcher up the line to catch the ball. Runner was out by 8-10 feet; catcher had the ball. #### giving the runner a lane, he had the ball.

That's a ####### horse#### call.
Click to expand...
The problem as I see it is that he never gave the runner a line. He was set up to block the plate the whole time. So saying the throw took him into the path isn't really correct since standing in the path will always result in the throw taking you into the path.

And the problem is, if you don't give the runner a lane, what do you expect him to do? Just give up? I don't really like the rule at all but you can't block the plate and say he can't run the catcher over. Need to pick one or the other.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. When he first set up, his foot was behind the plate. He was giving the runner the entire plate to slide into. Once the throw was made, he shuffled forward so he could catch the throw.
Click to expand...
Well most good throws would then take the catcher into the base path. Most catchers stand above the plate so they don't run into the issue. If he is above the plate, the throw doesn't take him into the base path. If this is how the rule ends up playing out, then you can essentially block the plate on any good throw by staying behind the plate and stepping up on the throw.

 
sporthenry said:
BobbyLayne said:
the moops said:
JaxBill said:
That review by the Reds in Miami is a total embarrassment for baseball and changed the entire game.
Click to expand...
:shrug: You can't block the plate without the ball. It's not that complicated
Click to expand...
The throw took the catcher up the line to catch the ball. Runner was out by 8-10 feet; catcher had the ball. #### giving the runner a lane, he had the ball.

That's a ####### horse#### call.
Click to expand...
The problem as I see it is that he never gave the runner a line. He was set up to block the plate the whole time. So saying the throw took him into the path isn't really correct since standing in the path will always result in the throw taking you into the path.

And the problem is, if you don't give the runner a lane, what do you expect him to do? Just give up? I don't really like the rule at all but you can't block the plate and say he can't run the catcher over. Need to pick one or the other.
Click to expand...
On the replay they showed the catcher checking his feet t make sue he was in front of the plate before the throw came in. He didn't block the path until after he had the ball (and the runner was still 5-8 feet away)

Edit MLB now showing Cincy feed which didn't show what I was talking about

http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/marlins-manager-ejected-after-terrible-call-announcers-revolt.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Something interesting happened on Wednesday in Houston. The Athletics-Astros game drew a 0.0 rating on CSN Houston, the third time this has happened since the network’s launch nearly two years ago. While this in and of itself isn’t strange, the other side of the equation is – the game wasn’t available at all in Oakland on CSN California, meaning that the two local ratings for the game were 0.0 and N/A.
Click to expand...
 
Raider Nation said:
Something interesting happened on Wednesday in Houston. The Athletics-Astros game drew a 0.0 rating on CSN Houston, the third time this has happened since the network’s launch nearly two years ago. While this in and of itself isn’t strange, the other side of the equation is – the game wasn’t available at all in Oakland on CSN California, meaning that the two local ratings for the game were 0.0 and N/A.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Not good. Astros stink but they have a few terrific players, and many more in the system.

 
rodg12 said:
JaxBill said:
Video of reviewed (and reversed) play at plate

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2014_07_31_cinmlb_miamlb_1&mode=video
Click to expand...
Terrible. Not in the spirit of the rule at all.
Click to expand...
It's exactly the spirit of the rule in the sense that Cozart blows up the catcher on that exact play in 2013. Rule sucks though.

It makes no sense to base it on the throw. MLB fielders can put it up the line to make you "need" to block the plate to catch pretty accurately.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Eephus
**2015 MLB Season Thread: This is how the chapter ends
70 71 72
Replies
4K
Views
105K
the moops
the moops
Eephus
2013 Hot Stove & Capella's Fabulous Cornhole Thread
28 29 30
Replies
1K
Views
52K
the moops
the moops
Eephus
***Official MLB 2013 Season Thread
52 53 54
Replies
3K
Views
78K
Hoos First
Hoos First

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top