Can_of_corn

I'll enjoy it almost as much. It'd be really close. Kinda like 2012 or 1989.

I don't think teams can go into the draft and just pick the top player on their board every round.

Some folks might not believe this but I want the team to be successful. I think they have two avenues to winning. Be smarter and better than pretty much everyone else. Get really lucky.

I know you generally have to pay for quality. I think they did well, but considering that they had the 1-2 pick and the largest pool of money they should have had the best draft. Do you think they are going to catch up to the rest of the AL East with "very nice"?

Right, because they don't need all the talent they can get. They are busy killing it on the field with the current guys. Who cares if they could have picked up someone better? Why go through all the effort of getting the best six players they can?

From my vantage point the draft is one of the best ways to get talent into the organization. I'd prefer they maximize the return. I have to wonder if they don't spend that 300K if it could have been used at some point to secure a better prospect.

I was thinking a sit-com in the vein of Parker Lewis Can't Lose.

Just from looking at year to year spending from teams. I haven't attempted to research it. This year all I've looked at is the Os. Interested to see where the Jays and Marlins end up.

Blame it on Bitsko?

I don't track it. From what I've noticed yea, teams tend to spend it all. I think it would just look worse for the O's if they don't. Since they went with an underslot choice at #2 and they have been slashing payroll.

You are kidding right? Boomer nostalgia concert ticket prices are high. Fleetwood Mac tickets average $228 a pop and they peaked in 1977.

It gives media members ammunition to call the 2020 draft money motivated. Now does that really impact anything? Probably not.

I don't think they should, but the optics are better if they do.

They better spend it all. ? Better that they overpay this kid than look cheap.

5.2 is a hair lower than we were expecting right?

They weren't that valuable because they struck out that much, they were given enough at bats to strike out that much because they were valuable.

Who swings for the banana?

My money is on blisters.

Great. That would be why I said probably. To make allowances for that exact scenario.

And didn't do things like bat flip. For the record I love bat flips.

It's the first play on the highlight video. And it isn't the worst thing in the world. But in my eyes it was a Chad move.

Something can be within the rules and still be a chad move. That's kinda the definition in my mind. A jerk of a move but not illegal. If you think that qualifies as slander, well good on you. I've been called a lot worse here on OH.

Not really. I don't think it's a big deal. But I do think if someone is going to proclaim a player they have probably barely seen "plays the game the right way" that it should be addressed. I for one don't feel qualified to say how Kjerstad "plays the game", if we even know what "playing the game the right way" even means.