Can_of_corn

I can't give them an A since I'm not convinced they have an everyday ML Centerfielder on the roster or in the minors. Mullin's glove isn't enough to compensate for his bat and Hays can't stay on the field. For me to give an A I would have to be looking at, at least, ML regular players at all positions. They do look to be in good shape at the corners.

If it happens every year to most teams than examples should be easy to find.

Except I didn't use that term. The majority of the time that I notice teams gaming service time it is for highly rated prospects. Is some of that simply the fact that it is more likely to be reported? Probably. Can you think of many examples of apparent service time gaming with guys outside of say the top 50 prospect lists?

I'd love to see an ELI5 version of the law firm's financials. We just had Forbes proclaiming the team very profitable a couple weeks ago. I think you have to try pretty hard to lose money when you own both a MLB team and the majority interest in your own RSN.

I don't think the team is in that bad a financial situation. I think ownership wants to pull more capital from the team.

Mountcastle had a higher OPS+, wOBA, and wRC+. So did Iglesias.

Marlins fans are pretty upset.

That was one of only a couple times I can remember being actually upset over a draft pick.

If I'm the Blue Jays I'm calling up the most highly regarded swing doctors in the game to work with him. If he can lift those ground balls into the air he'll put up some big seasons at the plate. I also have to wonder about career longevity with his weight, but I'd worry about that after he starts lifting the ball.

Y'all sleeping on my boy Cadyn. He's got the draft pedigree.

In your defense if Vlad can up his launch angle he'll still be a beast on offense. Of course he's trash on the basepaths and in the field so his value will be limited regardless.

I love it.

I think it would be hard to prove one way or the other.

A lot of teams? I don't think a lot of teams engage in this type of manipulation for players that are not very highly regarded.

It sounded like the total number of coaches at the ML level was decreasing by one.

Very odd choice of an alternative reason. I don't see how this is a good look for the team either with fans or in the industry.

I remember a hilarious blog post about Scott destroying the Tigers. He got in their heads, at least the fanbase.

That was the father not the sons.

I don't like their business model but I've never heard poor things about their reporting.

Makes me look a bit less crazy these last couple years eh?

I was told it was reported in the Athletic. I don't subscribe so I could have been deceived. Relevant quote is below.

They won't pay for coaches, they aren't likely to be in on a free agent of note.

Generally the drop off from the last pick in the first round and the first pick in the second round isn't pronounced.

I'm guessing more senior signs have made the majors than either you or I would expect.