Sessh

I would rather see Eshelman. He has a good debut and then he gets sent back down so Wojo can pitch instead? I don't get it really.

..and no surprises on the moves. I don't think Mullins ever makes it back unless the Orioles get carpet bombed with injuries. Good to see Hays back, but unfortunate that it seems he will have durability issues over the course of his career.

We still need two starters for the TB series. Bundy has the opener and Cashner has game four, but both DH starters are TBD. I assume one will be Eshelman which would be a huge test for him making his first two starts against the same team. Actually, I remember seeing Means there for Saturday, but it's now TBD.

/hockey Well, the east looked like this last year. Metro division Washington 48-26-8 (104pts) NY Islanders 48-27-7 (103pts) Pittsburgh 44-26-12 (100pts) Atlantic division Tampa Bay 62-16-4 (128pts) Boston 49-24-9 (107pts) Toronto 46-28-8 (100pts) Wild cards Carolina 46-29-7 (99pts) Columbus 47-31-4 (98pts) Next two teams x Montreal 44-30-8 (96pts) x Florida 36-32-14 (86pts) - Tampa Bay lost to a Columbus team that made several high profile rental acquisitions VIA trades to go for it and that team had just started playing really well with a few games left in the regular season. TB was completely outmatched and they were a soft, highly skilled finesse team while Columbus was also skilled and very physical which was too much for them, so TB got beat up all series and swept in the first round. They were thoroughly outplayed, out-efforted, lost all the board battles and failed to do all the small things needed to win. The highly skilled team that had a historically incredible season was completely shut down for this series. Columbus had also been eliminated in the first round like three straight years and had something to prove. - Washington lost to Carolina in seven games and they made it all the way to the conference finals and swept the Islanders in the second round. Despite having 104pts, the Capitals hadn't played all that well starting in January and it wasn't a surprise that they lost. They looked tired and their play was inconsistent for most of the second half of the year and this series probably due to a shorter rest from winning the cup last year. Carolina was a good, scrappy team and deserved to win both their series, but they got swept by the Bruins in the conference finals. Western conference Central division Nashville 47-29-6 (100pts) Winnipeg 47-30-5 (99pts) St.Louis 45-28-9 (99pts) Pacific division Calgary 50-25-7 (107pts) San Jose 46-27-9 (101pts) Vegas 43-32-7 (93pts) Wild cards Dallas 43-32-7 (93pts) Colorado 38-30-14 (90pts) Next two teams Arizona 39-35-8 (86pts) Chicago 36-34-12 (84pts) 3 more teams above 80 pts - Nashville lost to Dallas in six games. The Stars had been called out publicly for their play particularly their star players by the FO in the media which got them going. Nashville was dealing with some injuries and were starting to show their age. I didn't watch a lot of this series, though. - Calgary lost to Colorado in seven games. Calgary's star offensive player didn't perform in this series while Colorado's did. They were a team on the upswing since last season and almost won the second round as well. Calgary has a history of losing in the first round of the playoffs having done so in 12 of their last 14 playoff appearances since winning the cup in 1989. Colorado's goalie (formerly Washington's backup goalie) had emerged as a star particularly in the second half and was a big reason for their success. I wasn't all that surprised by any of these outcomes though I was surprised that TB got swept the way they did, but I couldn't see Columbus losing and had doubts about TB's physical game and their "killer instinct" for lack of a better term. One thing that is unique to hockey is that the playoffs are a completely different game than the regular season. Play is much more physical and refs generally let more things go that would get called in the regular season. It's been this way forever and players seem to love it this way. It's a harder, more physical game and certainly more entertaining to watch as well. Tampa Bay was a team built to win in the regular season and that's what they did, but the team didn't have another level to turn their play up to. They lacked the physical element needed for the postseason and got run over by Columbus. I think it was the first time that all four WC teams knocked out all the top seeds. It made for a wide open postseason which was fun. St. Louis won the cup and at one point during the season, they had the worst record in the league. Parity in the NHL is pretty damn good. The two worst teams were two rebuilding clubs Ottawa (69pts) and the LA Kings (71pts). /end hockey To your point about the NBA top seed winning more than half the time, isn't that much more pointless? Why even play the first round if you already know who's going to win? Your comment about it not being right that a team that has the best regular season record losing seems like you're putting more emphasis on a team's play in the regular season than you do in the playoffs. If a team is the best in the regular season and they can't bring that same level of play into the postseason, why do they deserve to win? It is my understanding that there is a huge gap between the top teams in the NBA and the middle teams, right? If the top seed is almost guaranteed to win, I don't find that to be all that exciting. Why even watch unless you're a fan of either of those teams?

It's possible that the 80's is when some players started to sour on steroids, but it doesn't seem like very many cared about it in the 60's and 70's. Canseco was the first I remember as well to which he responded by flipping the board and pointing out to people that he wasn't doing anything most other guys weren't also doing. I can also buy the idea that guys started hitting the gym more often as well.

I posted links to them when I brought it up earlier in this thread with links and quotes.

According to the Congressional Subcommittee's findings, the rates of use were at alarming levels in all sports. Tom House's candid statements indicate that most of the league was on PEDs including anabolic steroids in the 60's. There's plenty of guys that came out and said how rampant amphetamine use was as well. Why would you say drastically higher? Is it because the results were better? I tend to believe usage rates were roughly the same through all these years with the drugs being better producing more drastic results and giving the illusion that usage rates were higher.

Three of those 40 HR seasons came in his age 35+ seasons. Career high in HR's (47) at the age of 37. Highest SLG of his career at the age of 39. Three of his five 1.000+ OPS seasons in his age 35+ years. Aaron didn't age normally until after he passed Ruth. Of course there's a lot to be suspicious of there.

Early 40's. I should also add that steroids cause muscle gain even without working out. Someone taking steroids and not working out will still make significant muscle and strength gains. You will gain a lot of muscle even if you're doing nothing but sitting on the couch, but only about half as much as you would if you were working out too. You will gain more muscle taking steroids and not working out than someone would if they were working out and not taking steroids. Also, steroids were rampant in the 60's as well and if they are rampant in the 60's and 70's, the 50's also have to be questioned at least.

I don't know, this doesn't happen in hockey at all. Teams are still fighting for the division if things are close at the top in the final week or two. Winning the division isn't the point of the season, though. It's winning the Stanley Cup. Division banners hanging in your stadium are nice and all, but that's not what those players dream about as kids. That doesn't mean no one tries to win the division and the NHL has 16 teams in the playoffs. As an NHL fan, I love this. Playoff hockey is the best hockey of the year and there's three months of it. The competition to even get the wildcards usually go down to the wire between at least four teams per league. Anyway, I know it's a different sport and league, but there's no disincentives visible at all in those leagues. Also, division winners get home team advantage throughout the playoffs. I just don't think the situation will be as grim as you seem to think it will be. I would rather have a more competitive regular season, even a shortened one if necessary, and more playoff baseball instead. I don't think there's any disincentives and of course teams would be happy to get into the playoffs at all. A 5% chance is better than a 0% chance.

Mancini. I know what he is and I at least know he can mash major league pitching. I know he would be a solid DH option that can play several positions in a pinch even if he doesn't do it very well. If I was forced to pick only one, I'd go with Mancini. .. but I at least want to get a look at Mountcastle in the majors. I would trade Mancini if we got a good offer. I don't think I'd do the same with Mountcastle though I'd listen to any offers for anyone.

Hopefully, Santander does well there. Broxton may still have some utility, though. Defensive replacement/4th OF/pinch runner type of player. If he can learn to play competently in right and left, he would certainly have more value off the bench. Martin is another guy whose D and speed might make him useful in similar ways. Maybe they wouldn't even be serving those roles on a competitive team, but we're not that. Even though Keon can't hit, his defense has been top notch lately. Martin, too.

The ability to trade draft picks could also help. Dealing with this epidemic of tanking is complex, but being able to trade guys like Machado and Britton for high draft picks would lessen the need for tanking and would probably shorten rebuilds. I know the NHL allows this, but I don't keep up with the NFL or NBA. They do too, right?

Agree. This is another reason why expanding the playoffs might make the regular season better. It's not so much for the top seeds, but more for the teams battling it out for the two wild card spots in each league. There are 30 teams in baseball and 10 make the postseason, so that's 2/3rds of the league that won't make it and many of those teams won't have a chance at all. So, the question at that point is why try at all? If you know you have no chance, then you're already thinking about things like your position in next year's draft before May is over. People may feel that expanding the playoffs makes the first round pointless, but I don't see it that way. Sometimes, teams surprise you and there are upsets or much more entertaining series' than was anticipated. How much of this "pointless" stuff are you willing to accept to make the regular season more competitive in the middle and lower middle of the league? You have to give them some kind of incentive to try to compete other than "Hey! Stop doing that!" I dunno, maybe I'm biased. I see some things in the NHL system that I wish we could do more of in baseball. Salary cap being one. I think the NHL has raised their salary cap two straight seasons now.

Being regular season champions shouldn't mean anything after the regular season is over. Finishing first is winning a championship, not winning the regular season. That is true in baseball as well. It's nice to win the division, but in the end, so what if you lose in the playoffs? How much does the regular season mean at that point? It's all about the top prize in the end. The regular season is where you earn your right to be one of the teams playing for it. Well, I didn't say eliminate tanking. There's some teams who are rebuilding or not doing so well. How many more NBA teams would be terrible if only 500,000 teams were allowed in instead?

Sounds like part of a plan to deter tanking in baseball. This last NHL postseason, all four top seeds were knocked out by all four wildcard teams. Three were eliminated in the second round; one in six games and the other two in seven. The other got swept in the conference finals. I'd be interested in exploring a similar system in baseball. If more teams have a chance, then more teams will opt to go for it instead of tanking.

I don't disagree with anything you said here really. Yes, when these guys could use PEDs, they could perform as if they were in their prime when they were in their mid-late 30's. So, those contracts were worth it. Now, they're not and that's a big reason why it broke under it's own weight.

I'm sure the "PED" balls have nothing to do with that. On top of that, the damage has already been done and has been allowed to fester for too long. People already found better things to fill their time and have no vacancies. It's going to take more than home runs being up one year to bring them back or bring in new fans. I'm not sure THAT can be done either. I don't think some of that damage is even reversible, but if it can be, it will take many, many years of making the right decisions and part of that is being honest about the past. I am not all that confident in Manfred or his people to do any of that, but a strike would be catastrophic to those efforts.

That first part is really a big part of the problem. You can't see how the home run chases in the 90's and Bonds chasing Aaron had any impact on the entertainment value of the game. Monster home runs league wide and lots of them. Of course it affected the entertainment value of the game. I don't remember baseball ever being as popular as it was during those years. You couldn't turn your eyes away because you might miss a 450ft blast. Implying that home runs and scoring have no bearing on the entertainment value of the game is a pretty myopic statement. Your second quoted sentence is true, but no one complained about game length when scoring and home runs were up because games were exciting and stuff happened. Even when stuff wasn't happening, you knew something would eventually. The game length was worth the excitement value of the sport, but that is not the case anymore. It was never the case before the PED scandals.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this happened. This has been discussed sporadically (off-topic, of course) on here in various threads where it has come up. My personal view on this is that baseball will not recover from another strike. The players are fools. Baseball is already having a crisis of interest among younger fans. Of course players would strike because they're not being overpaid enough. See how that goes over with younger fans who think the sport is boring and nothing happens. Even the older fans may start to leave and that's all baseball has. I have said on here before that if there is another strike, that's probably it for me as a baseball fan. It may not happen immediately, but it will kill my interest especially when it's over stupid BS like this. Considering all the changes Manfred already wants to make, a strike would really give him reason to make some major changes. Whatever sport comes back from a strike is likely to be a very different one and probably for the worst. Baseball is truly facing a huge crisis right now on many fronts and we still can't come to grips with baseball's steroid culture that extends back into the 60's and possibly the 50's. It had been a HUGE part of the sport for 50 years and yet very few even considered the possibility that removing it would have massive, negative consequences on the sport. If they want 30+ players to make as much money as in the past, then let them use PEDs. Otherwise, no chance. It's so bizarre to me that few people seem to have even considered the possibility that outlawing PEDs would have negative consequences and that those consequences are having huge impacts on the game in ways that were not considered right now. Some may disagree and that's fine, but that IS the root of many of the issues facing the sport now including this one. Lower pay for 30+ players who are no longer getting help from drugs and are therefore not worth all the money they were paid when they were and it's amazing players don't realize this. It's as if PEDs never existed at all to them. The whitewashing of baseball history and the degree it has gone to is absurd. Until people realize the role this has played and is playing in the strife present in the sport right now, it's not going to get better. Manfred's changes certainly won't and a strike DEFINITELY won't. Baseball will find out just how much people still need baseball. Some, for sure, but I believe many will leave and not return. There won't be another McGuire/Sosa chase to save it this time.

There's nothing ridiculous about it. Major league hitters can hit fastballs and if they can't, they don't last long in the league. Even average hitters can hit a mid-90's fastball. Mark Wohlers was throwing 103 in the 90's and had a fairly underwhelming career overall. It takes way more than velocity to get ML hitters out on a consistent basis, so I would say that statement is rather ridiculous as well. If we're going to say that PEDs significantly increase athletic performance, than taking them away MUST significantly decrease athletic performance. The most noticeable effect of PEDs is more power, more homeruns and more scoring. Taking them away reverses those increases into the negative.

Not if they want to increase the sport's popularity, they won't. Fans love home runs. Last night was a great example. Without those "juiced balls", last night wouldn't have happened. I don't even like home run derbys and even I got into that one. The last thing baseball needs now is less scoring and less home runs. We already tried that for about 10 years and it hasn't worked out. If you're not going to let the players juice, then you have to juice the ball. The alternative is an even more boring sport where even less happens and less of a chance to lure in any new fans. The game has to be exciting. Home runs are exciting. I really don't get you guys. The sooner you understand that baseball has never been clean and just about every record set in this sport has been done with the help of PEDs, the better. Either juice the balls, make some PEDs legal to use under controlled circumstances or the sport is done. PEDs are at the foundation of the success of all sports and we see what happens when you try to remove it. The commissioner starts demolishing the fabric of the sport with stupid rules trying to replace what was lost by making every game a race to the finish which will only make things worse because it ignores the elephant in the room; the attempted removal of PEDs from baseball is at the root of all that's going wrong with it now.

Of course they did as others have pointed out to you. Aaron had some of the best seasons of his career after the age of 35 and had one of the best seasons in MLB history at 39. Also, consider that in 1973, a congressional subcommittee was tasked to investigate the prevalence of drug use in MLB and found (part of the more recent hearings) and was also included in the Mitchell Report. Do you get it now? Steroids were widespread in the 60's and 70's, possibly even as far back as the 50's. We may never know that for sure, but it's certainly conceivable. Take Tom House's comments on the matter: It's about time people stopped romanticizing and making excuses for the players of the past and hold them to the same standards you hold players to today. Many of them were using steroids and amphetamines. It was never clean and it never will be. You can't put that cat back in the bag.

Getting out of hand? You do realize that just about everyone was on amphetamines in the 60's and 70's, right? Guys were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses as well as growth hormones. Amphetamines have been around since the mid 1800's and steroids since the mid 1930's. Cocaine was legal in the early 1900's as well. This delusion that PED's just came out of nowhere in the 90's has to go. The drugs just got better in the 90's, that's it. The record books have been tainted for a very long time. I would say it's likely that over 75% of guys in there used PEDs. Aaron did. Mays did. Mantle did. Pretty much everybody did back then. Heck, Pud Galvin showed in 1889 that even back then, guys were willing to inject dubious substances into their body to try to extend their careers. Guys will do anything to get to MLB and stay there as long as they can. It's not going to change. Professional sports without PEDs would likely be extremely boring. Such a product has never, ever existed and likely never will and I don't know how anyone can assume that it would be a good product much less a better one.

Do franchises need faces? I always thought the logo was good enough. The Oriole bird is the "face" of the franchise. His/her contract never runs out. I never really understood this terminology "face of the franchise" and attributing it to a player. That's what mascots and logos are for. Anyway, I'd trade Mancini if the deal was right. As with Cashner, it depends how badly teams want them. I want quality over quantity as much as possible and if we have leverage (high demand for either one of those players), that's what I go for. I'm fine with playing the lottery ticket game, but I'd rather not have them "thrown in" to a deadline deal if at all possible. We can acquire such players in other ways. I don't want lottery tickets watering down deals especially any potential deal for Mancini or Cashner.