Moose Milligan

Sure, I can agree to that. Sports in general is facing a big problem, unfortunately. I don't really see how it gets better, either.

Yeah, I don't think a half hour difference is going to keep little Timmy interested in an inherently boring game especially when they'd rather be glued to their iPad/smartphone.

Dwight Evans. I was 9 when they got him but I was very excited. I realized he was old, but not THAT old and at the end of his line. That became glaringly apparent in the summer of '91.

I totally agree that trades should be allowed. It's a bland event for the most part, but if I were them I'd televise everything after that first day, those later rounds where team reps are just calling in picks on that recorded line. It's rapid fire and fun to listen to...if there's a way they could capture that and make it more appealing they could have something fun to watch.

It's not so much that CFB is more visible...it's that if even if you get a 4th round draft pick in the NFL draft, there's a really good chance that guy is going to be playing for your team in September. Most of the draft picks an NFL team makes end up making the roster. There are no guarantees like that in the MLB draft and I think that's the main issue. Unless you're an absolute die-hard, there's no way you're going to watch past your teams first pick because there's no guarantee that guy will ever make it to the majors. You can invest the same amount of time watching both drafts and be more rewarded for the time spent on the NFL draft and it's not even close. I'm inclined to agree that MLB should add some more excitement to their product but I'm not sure how they could do that given the function of the draft compared to the NFL and to a lesser extent, the NBA.

I don't see this being a problem.

High speed wifi throughout.

Ah, wildcard. You're a funny one!

I'd consider anything under 100 losses a success...given of course how the young players are playing.

Under the overhang is where it's at.

True. Launch angles play a part. I really don't care about home runs being decreased....I'm more concerned about balls in play overall. It's getting obnoxious seeing so many strikeouts in a game. Part of it is the stigma that hitters don't care about striking out anymore...not striking out 30 years ago was a badge of honor and if you were Reggie Jackson you were an outlier that just didn't care...and you hit enough homers to offset striking out. Hitters these days don't care. But...yeah, the game needs to get back to more balls in play and I'm not sure how they do that. Some have mentioned moving the mound back which I have mixed feelings on.

The article goes on to say that they estimate that it could decrease homers by 5%. Now are those would be homers turning into loud outs or doubles off the wall? Anyway, I hope MLB gets this right. It's sort of a step in the right direction when it comes to making this become less of a three outcome game. It doesn't solve cutting down strikeouts, though.

RIP Pedro Gomez. Good reporter. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30857724/espn-baseball-reporter-pedro-gomez-dies-58

Ready for baseball and warm weather. The abyss between NFL and Opening Day is the worst part of the year.

I hope not. We can kick off a whole debate about whether Wieters lived up to the billing...IMO, he didn't. And that's okay, the projections and proclamations and predictions were a bit absurd. Doesn't mean he wasn't a good player, he was a fine player. An integral part on some good teams. But I'd be disappointed if AR turns out to have a similar offensive profile. In regards to when he's up this year, I hope he's up by mid-June. Can't wait to hear CoC's thoughts on service time manipulation.

Man, I dunno. I think he's good but he's not that good.

Does anyone give Chuck Finley bonus points for Tawny Kitaen? I dunno, I mean, look at this f'ing guy:

Yep, good take, especially the last paragraph. I didn't remember him being good for the Mets but he was. I think those were the Mets teams that had spent some money, had some star power names and just weren't that good.

WS MVP in 1985. Wasn't so good in other postseason appearances, but those came when he was at the end of his line.

Yes. C'mon, rank em.

I'd go... Felix Hernandez Orel Hershiser David Cone Roy Owalt Andy Pettitte Bret Saberhagen Mark Buehrle Cole Hamels Tim Hudson Chuck Finley Based on nothing.

oops..126.

I agree, he was a vet committee selection. We as fans denote who was a first ballot HoFer and who got in by the skin of their teeth. But they're all in there together at the end of the day. I don't particularly like that Jack Morris is in, IMO he is really in because of Game 7 in the '91 Series...without that, he doesn't get elected. But if Jack Morris helps guys like Santana and Felix get in - guys who were much better pitchers but lack longevity- I'm fine with that.

Cito sucks.

He started at 19. And racked up 190 innings in his age 20 season. So he's been around for awhile but he started early and put a lot of innings on that arm early so it's not a total surprise he hasn't been effective into his 30s. But longevity is part of what separates the guys like Verlander, Kershaw, Greinke and Scherzer from a guy like Felix. I was going to also say that Greinke doesn't feel like a Hall of Famer to me but he's racked up 72.2.WAR and 208 wins against 126 losses. As SG mentioned, if Jack Morris is in, you can certainly make a case for Felix. You could probably make a case for Johann Santana, too.